Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The notice in relation to action item #3 will follow shortly after this email.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes / Action items EPDP Drafting Team meeting on 5 July 2018:

These high-level notes are designed to help the DT navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/2wA5BQ.

Scope

• Note that a number of specific comments/edits were put forward to the current language in the charter, in addition to a number of general comments that were provided on the mailing list.
• Recognition that EPDP needs to be focused in its initial phases just on the Temp Spec, nothing more. Objective is to have draft Initial Report ready by ICANN63 to have process completed by May 25 2019.
• Work on access model is also urgent and important, but cannot be done in the 8-9 weeks available to work on the Temp Spec Initial Report. Work on Temp Spec would help inform discussion on access, includes a number of gating questions that need to be answered first. 
• Once Initial Report on Temp Spec is complete, then it should shift focus to access and accreditation, informed by the work on the Temp Spec.
• BC does not agree that accreditation should be part of the EPDP - for the most part that will be handled outside of ICANN's remit. Access is key, BC understands that there is a short time available, but does not want to put a false deadline on for the work on access. Leave flexibility to EPDP Team and not limit the discussion of the EPDP based on perceived notion that the work cannot get done.
• IPC is of the view that access remains in scope as it is part of the temporary specification. See also comments submitted to the mailing list.
• Everything should be considered within scope of the EPDP, but items in the annex should be addressed following the completion of the Initial Report on the Temp Spec related issues.
• Need to define the use of the term 'Temporary Specification' does it include or not include the Annex when referred to. For the purpose of the EPDP WG Phase One, "Temp Spec" does not include the Annex.  The Annex can be considered in Phase Two following the publication of the Phase One initial report.
• Consider forming a small group consisting of Paul, Susan, Keith and Stephanie  to look at the different comments / positions and develop an approach that may be acceptable to all.

Action item #1: DT members to review google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x2k9e3w752j-C_Ix43A7HSDV2G-_zXlyzZozei4WNJ0/edit) and include any input / comments that are missing. Ideally focus should be on comments/suggestions section instead of redline so that small team is able to try and reconcile the different positions in an updated version.

Action item #2: Paul, Susan, Keith and Stephanie (with support from staff as needed) to work on scope language.

Action item #3: Staff to recirculate list of google docs with different charter topics so that DT members can review in next 24 hours that all info is there. Friday 6 July COB is deadline for any further input.

Membership Criteria

• See input received in google doc.
• Is current language to prescriptive? Donna has suggested a less prescriptive replacement - noting that appointing organizations are responsible for selecting members that they believe are best suited for the role.
• Consider sharing possible dates/location for F2F meetings to allow members to plan accordingly. Location may also depend on membership composition.
• Fourth bullet - how to define temperament? consider changing it to willing to work in good faith towards consensus? Or solution oriented? Update to 'treat' and 'respect'.
• If members do not abide by EPDP Team statement of participation, Chair has the ability to limit participation.
• Use of the term consensus refers to section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group guidelines, not Consensus Policy.  Consider including a reference to the Working Group guidelines.

Action item #4: Staff to replace dot points language in charter with text suggested by Donna (with minor edits as discussed)

Action item #5: Staff to share proposed call for volunteers & EPDP Team statement of participation with DT for review.

EPDP Team Composition

• See comments in the google doc.
• Principle of inclusivity key.
• Board has confirmed Board's preference for 2 Board liaisons.
• Parity between CSG and NCSG participation is sought.
• Possible compromise put forward by BC (2+1 per C in CSG and 6 +3 for NCSG)
• SO/AC representation: consider going back to 1 + 1, with the exception of the GAC who would get 3 + 3. SO/ACs would be invited to participate but not required to do so. Could consider inviting to appoint member or liaison - as their preference is.  Liaisons primary's purpose is to get information back to group - liaisons can listen or work, while members have to commit to work and sign up to the statement of participation. Key is to ensure that a member/liaison from another SO/AC can't block consensus because they can't reach consensus within their own group. Should making consensus be the perogative of GNSO groups only? ACs have their means to provide Advice to the Board. To the extent that you are not able to agree to the statement in full, other SO/ACs should assign a liaison instead of a member.
• May need to explain what a consensus call is. Reference GNSO WG Guidelines on provisions concerning consensus call.
• Need to define member/liaison/observer/alternate terms.
• Consider using a form that is to be used if/when alternates step in.
• Small team identified for scope discussion also aim to finalize number discussion.

Action item #6: Follow up with GAC on the difference between members and liaisons and their expectations with regards to GAC participation. 

Action item #7: Small team to review membership # and aim to come to agreement on proposal to take back to full DT. Deadline - provide proposal by Wednesday 11 July at the latest.

Leadership:

• Current suggestion in charter is for EPDP Team to appoint two vice-chairs, some may have concerns about that suggestion. Small leadership team may be preferred - one vice-chair may be sufficient.
• Consider removing issue to appointing two vice-chairs but leave it to the EPDP Team to decide?
• Point iii) please delete "and trademark law". Not all agree with the deletion of this reference as knowledge in that regard may be of specific importance in relation to access.

Action item #8: DT to provide input on leadership section so that any issues can be resolved as soon as possible.

Other topics:

Action item #9: Staff to review comments / edits on other topics and see if/how these can be addressed in the master document.

Next Steps:

• No email vote yet as discussions have not completed yet. Likely vote to take place during Council meeting on 19 July. Aim is to have ‘final’ charter to the DT by next week Wednesday.

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@icann.org

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.