Hi Marita I'm a LibreOffice/Linux user, and have no issues opening this file. As a workaround, you could save it into Google Drive (assuming you have a Google account) and then Download it in any format you wish. satish On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:41 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

I am an Open Office user -- but I don't usually have a difficulty with docx files. Neither of these files, however, will open for me. I get a message that they are corrupt files. I don't know if anyone else is having this difficulty.

Marita On 4/3/2019 9:59 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Yes, thanks. I did eventually get at it -- the one file you sent. Marita On 4/3/2019 10:26 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

I am only on my phone and so cannot resend in another format (pdf). Perhaps someone else can.

I have not receved my copy from the list but I did check the copy in the archive and can open it.

Marita, you mention "Neither of these files". I only sent one file.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On April 3, 2019 10:10:44 AM EDT, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

I am an Open Office user -- but I don't usually have a difficulty with docx files. Neither of these files, however, will open for me. I get a message that they are corrupt files. I don't know if anyone else is having this difficulty.

Marita

On 4/3/2019 9:59 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Hi all, just in case someone else has this issue, please find the pdf attached. Best Rainer -- monade agentur fuer kommunikation GmbH Prager Straße 60 04317 Leipzig Germany Geschäftsführer: Rainer Rodewald Registergericht: Amtsgericht Leipzig Registernummer: HRB 19279 www.monade.com Telefon ++ 49 (0) 341 2 11 19 42 Telefax ++ 49 (0) 341 9 60 20 84 Am 03.04.2019 um 16:26 schrieb Alan Greenberg:

I am only on my phone and so cannot resend in another format (pdf). Perhaps someone else can.

I have not receved my copy from the list but I did check the copy in the archive and can open it.

Marita, you mention "Neither of these files". I only sent one file.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On April 3, 2019 10:10:44 AM EDT, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

I am an Open Office user -- but I don't usually have a difficulty with docx files. Neither of these files, however, will open for me. I get a message that they are corrupt files. I don't know if anyone else is having this difficulty.

Marita

On 4/3/2019 9:59 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

Thank you Marita for this concise and helpful summary of the current discussion. Like you I think that if we are to be making advice to the Board it should suggest an alternative approach to an issue of concern rather than disagreeing with what has already been decided or will be discussed in phase 2. Our advice needs to be innovative. My 2c as I unfortunately haven't had enough time in the day to follow all the details. Maureen On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:32 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

For Bastiaan and anyone else who was not able to make the call, I made the following points on this issue:

1. I am not crazy about the idea of issuing this advice to the board but, if we are going to do it, let's make sure we a really good reason to raise any of these issues.

2. I could rationalize the Thick WhoIs item as there has been new legal advice in the meantime so we are asking that this advice be given full consideration.

3. I can almost rationalize the Geographic Differentiation" as there seems to have been a commitment by the Chair that this issue would be reopened in Phase 2 and it does not appear to be on the agenda. Also, there has been some new legal opinion. I am not agreeing with the position but as I understand it, this is a request to continue the discussion -- as per a commitment that was made.

4. I am not in favour of the last item -- requesting a redo on the Legal/Natural Persons decisions-- it is already covered, as Bastiaan says, scheduled to be discussed in Phase 2 and our bringing it up in this way seems like whining. There was a suggestion on the call that we could ask for a study. I did say that that might make a difference -- offering something new to the current situation. But then, I also don't see why that request could not be made during the discussions.

In summary, I am not challenging anyone's position on the substance of these issues. I am just asking that we *make sure* there is something new, something that takes the advice being offered beyond a complaint on the terms of the report as it currently stands.

Marita On 4/4/2019 4:06 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:

Thanks a lot, Alan - your and Hadia’s efforts are much appreciated

(I was not on yesterday’s CPWG call so do not know how this was discussed)

It might not come as a surprise, but I do not agree with the advice on ‘Geographic Differentiation’. Both when it comes to the framing/introduction as well as the conclusion. I do not have time to elaborate on this know, but happy to do so later - in the meantime see my previous comments.

I can agree with the 'Thick WHOIS’ concerns - the part on 'Legal/Natural Person Differentiation' seems redundant to me though, this is already covered by rec#17: 'The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2’

cheers Bastiaan

*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***

On 3 Apr 2019, at 15:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. <Advice-DRAFT-v01.docx>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing listregistration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Dear Bastiaan, all Thanks Alan (and Haidia?) for this draft, On the geographic differentiation am more inclined towards maintaining our request for it to be discussed at phase2. During the early discussion of phase 1, a few members of the ePDP including (ALAC) made an attempt to push for a scenario where we use this opportunity to address (or provide a foundation for) a system that will not only address GDPR but also address other privacy related laws that may spring up from other parts of the world. There was a significant push back from the contracted side (including NCSG) strongly(and rightly so) insisting that this was an exercise solely meant for GDPR. I then wonder why the ePDP would want to apply the GDPR globally when it in "theory/practice" does not "protect/affect" the global users. So I think and believe that we still need to make that distinction and differentiation. If that differentiation exist then it will be easier to evaluate the effect of GDPR with regards to data of users "protected" by it and those who are not and perhaps it will help appreciate the good/bad of the GDPR syndrome. An attempt to apply a regional policy to global users should not be supported by ALAC. That said, I will suggest that the security point being enumerated under the geographic differentiation(from the moreover paragraph) should perhaps be assigned a sub heading as it's an important point that needs to be maintained even if we decide not to keep the geographic differentiation concern. Regards PS: Unless otherwise stated, my views here are always as an end user and not representative of the views of any other hats I may wear. Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, 09:06 Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:

Thanks a lot, Alan - your and Hadia’s efforts are much appreciated

(I was not on yesterday’s CPWG call so do not know how this was discussed)

It might not come as a surprise, but I do not agree with the advice on ‘Geographic Differentiation’. Both when it comes to the framing/introduction as well as the conclusion. I do not have time to elaborate on this know, but happy to do so later - in the meantime see my previous comments.

I can agree with the 'Thick WHOIS’ concerns - the part on 'Legal/Natural Person Differentiation' seems redundant to me though, this is already covered by rec#17: 'The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2’

cheers Bastiaan

*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***

...

On 3 Apr 2019, at 15:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. <Advice-DRAFT-v01.docx>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Hi Alan,

On 5 Apr 2019, at 21:31, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Bastiaan, let me understand. What we are asking for is an opportunity for the EPDP to have a discussion weighing the pros and cons - the balancing consideration called for under GDPR in deciding what data needs to be redacted.

The way I read the draft advise we are arguing for a lot more.

So you are against the EPDP using the balance test prescribed by GDPR - something that was not done during Phase 1?

I’m not sure where you got that from, me supposedly being 'against the EPDP using the balance test prescribed by GDPR’. Let me reiterate myself: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-March/000986.html I think I am pretty clear there: while I might disagree with you and others on the substance of the topic, if it was agreed up, based on 'the recollection of the ALAC and SSAC as well as the EPDP Chair’, that the (non-) necessity of geo distinction of registrants would be further discussed and decided on in phase 2, then I will most certainly support us reminding the board of that. But, again, that is not (only) what the draft advice is arguing for IMO. thanks Bastiaan

At 04/04/2019 04:06 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:

...

Thanks a lot, Alan - your and Hadia’s efforts are much appreciated

(I was not on yesterday’s CPWG call so do not know how this was discussed)

It might not come as a surprise, but I do not agree with the advice on ‘Geographic Differentiation’. Both when it comes to the framing/introduction as well as the conclusion. I do not have time to elaborate on this know, but happy to do so later - in the meantime see my previous comments.

I can agree with the 'Thick WHOIS’ concerns - the part on 'Legal/Natural Person Differentiation' seems redundant to me though, this is already covered by rec#17: 'The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2’

cheers Bastiaan

*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***

...

On 3 Apr 2019, at 15:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. <Advice-DRAFT-v01.docx>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

Hello Carlton, I hear you loud and clear, but if we are being realistic, I think the level of representation that exist within the ePDP may be a factor on how far one can push these things. I have heard a couple of times that the numbers don't matter but how loud we "constructively" scream, well within ICANN, that's probably nothing more than a good motivational speech. Attempts has been made to get this through via the ePDP without luck and since ALAC practically has a milk teeth on ePDP, I don't think it will be out of order to utilize that which we've always been reminded of as being our role, which is to advice; hopefully there are still some permanent teeth left in there. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, 17:54 Carlton Samuels, <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:

Thick WHOIS made sense back then - and some of us were savaged for taking that position! - and still does today, if only because if every GTLD operator has the same obligations it is easier to check compliance.

The distinction between legal and natural persons and why that would matter is, um, well, I am loathe to commit 2 more brain cells to that argument.

The wave and momentum of national data privacy law and regulations is tacking the EU way. So in the final analysis a geographic distinction has no long term value.

Do we have a new solution to offer anywhere?

And why does this 'advise the Board request/require' sound so much like we got popped in the mouth in the schoolyard and ran to teacher for justice?

A better posture is to make the arguments we favour sharper and put them on the wire for the WG to see.

Orchestrate and manufacture consent!

Carlton.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 8:59 am Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Brotherman, see my responses inline. ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:40 PM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Carlton,

I hear you loud and clear, but if we are being realistic, I think the level of representation that exist within the ePDP may be a factor on how far one can push these things. I have heard a couple of times that the numbers don't matter but how loud we "constructively" scream, well within ICANN, that's probably nothing more than a good motivational speech.

True, numbers do matter. And yes, they truly matter for one reason you implied; managed outcomes.

Attempts has been made to get this through via the ePDP without luck

It is what it is because numbers matter. And if you cannot convince enough 'votes' to peel with you then all that is left is the moral high ground. Leaves you with one tool, moral outrage. We could have acted up, carried on, publish even a mild statement of 'concern'. Exercise* our *nuclear option; go on record as not endorsing Phase 1 outcome!

and since ALAC practically has a milk teeth on ePDP, I don't think it will be out of order to utilize that which we've always been reminded of as being our role, which is to advice;

When we ceded the moral high ground we effortlessly messaged these were "nice-to- haves".

hopefully there are still some permanent teeth left in there.

Yeah, but if results matter then we're back in the lane where the Board response is pre-ordained; a shrug of the shoulders and a 'what can I tell ya, we think your gripes have merit but we can hardly go against the consensus position of the WG, can we? Plus one out of three of your issues still in play. It ain't all that bad!' The end.

Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, 17:54 Carlton Samuels, <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thick WHOIS made sense back then - and some of us were savaged for taking that position! - and still does today, if only because if every GTLD operator has the same obligations it is easier to check compliance.

The distinction between legal and natural persons and why that would matter is, um, well, I am loathe to commit 2 more brain cells to that argument.

The wave and momentum of national data privacy law and regulations is tacking the EU way. So in the final analysis a geographic distinction has no long term value.

Do we have a new solution to offer anywhere?

And why does this 'advise the Board request/require' sound so much like we got popped in the mouth in the schoolyard and ran to teacher for justice?

A better posture is to make the arguments we favour sharper and put them on the wire for the WG to see.

Orchestrate and manufacture consent!

Carlton.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 8:59 am Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg