Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0> _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Thanks Keith. We can support my alternative language in J, even though I think the issue of harmonization is an important one the WG should consider. We can’t support Pam’s proposed language, so hopefully, Pam can agree that my alternative language is acceptable. Best, Paul From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi Keith, I sent a couple comments last night but very concerned with how we can issue a Final report for the ePDP and then go back and do another initial report. I think we should consider all of these as numbered deliverables until the work of the ePDP is finalized and then submit a Final Report. The* second deliverabl*e shall be the Initial Report which will include the items that received full consensus support per the triage document as well as all other items of the Temporary Specification (not including the Annex) that were considered and deliberated upon, followed by a Final Report following review of public comments. Per the illustrative timeline in section II of the charter, this implies that the Initial Report on the items related to the Temporary Specification (excluding the Annex) is expected to be published for public comment shortly after ICANN63 (October 2018) and the *Final Report* delivered to the GNSO Council for its consideration by the end of January / beginning of February 2019. The third deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be an* Initial Report *outlining aproposed model [PL1] [DK2] of a system for providing accredited access to non-public registration data, where items having Full Consensus of the group are: Other point I made was concerning the use of "registration" vs "registrant" data. For the most part the Temp Spec addresses Registrant data (and this is what is in dispute) not the full registration data which includes generated , register, and registry data. We should reference registrant data unless we the topic includes all of the fields in the record. ------------------------------ [PL1]Not clear what the “the proposed model” is? Should it be “a proposed model”? [DK2]Corrected to “a proposed model” On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Keith.
We can support my alternative language in J, even though I think the issue of harmonization is an important one the WG should consider. We can’t support Pam’s proposed language, so hopefully, Pam can agree that my alternative language is acceptable.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58 AM *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM *To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM *To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith < kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
*"The EPDP Team shall respect the **timelines** and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." *
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org < marika.konings@icann.org>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi Susan, Apologies for missing your email last night. 1. The Initial Report on an Access Model (now referred to in the charter/scope as “standardized access model”) can be under development once the Temp Spec gating questions are answered, so I don’t see the process as you described it – “producing a Temp Spec Final Report and then going back to do another initial report.” At your request, we agreed to remove the references to “Phase 1 and Phase 2” to allow the group to begin work on the access model once the gating questions are answered, even if the Temp Spec initial report isn’t 100% final. The Temp Spec Final Report simply cannot be gated or delayed by work on a standardized access model. If they can be finished concurrently, great, but one component has a deadline set by the Board, and the other does not. We will likely have to issue two initial reports and two final reports, and the charter must provide that flexibility. If I’m not understanding your concern accurately, please propose text that will help clarify. 2. On your point about “Registrant Data” vs. “Registration Data” the Temporary Specification itself is named “Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data,” so I think we should keep that term. Thanks and regards, Keith From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 12:21 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith, I sent a couple comments last night but very concerned with how we can issue a Final report for the ePDP and then go back and do another initial report. I think we should consider all of these as numbered deliverables until the work of the ePDP is finalized and then submit a Final Report. The second deliverable shall be the Initial Report which will include the items that received full consensus support per the triage document as well as all other items of the Temporary Specification (not including the Annex) that were considered and deliberated upon, followed by a Final Report following review of public comments. Per the illustrative timeline in section II of the charter, this implies that the Initial Report on the items related to the Temporary Specification (excluding the Annex) is expected to be published for public comment shortly after ICANN63 (October 2018) and the Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council for its consideration by the end of January / beginning of February 2019. The third deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be an Initial Report outlining aproposed model [PL1] [DK2] of a system for providing accredited access to non-public registration data, where items having Full Consensus of the group are: Other point I made was concerning the use of "registration" vs "registrant" data. For the most part the Temp Spec addresses Registrant data (and this is what is in dispute) not the full registration data which includes generated , register, and registry data. We should reference registrant data unless we the topic includes all of the fields in the record. _____ [PL1]Not clear what the “the proposed model” is? Should it be “a proposed model”? [DK2]Corrected to “a proposed model” On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Keith. We can support my alternative language in J, even though I think the issue of harmonization is an important one the WG should consider. We can’t support Pam’s proposed language, so hopefully, Pam can agree that my alternative language is acceptable. Best, Paul From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0> _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
The problem in my view is that the temp spec erred in referring to registrant data. Too limited. Registration data is a better term to use. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-07-16 12:20, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Keith,
I sent a couple comments last night but very concerned with how we can issue a Final report for the ePDP and then go back and do another initial report. I think we should consider all of these as numbered deliverables until the work of the ePDP is finalized and then submit a Final Report.
The*second deliverabl*e shall be the Initial Report which will include the items that received full consensus support per the triage document as well as all other items of the Temporary Specification (not including the Annex) that were considered and deliberated upon, followed by a Final Report following review of public comments. Per the illustrative timeline in section II of the charter, this implies that the Initial Report on the items related to the Temporary Specification (excluding the Annex) is expected to be published for public comment shortly after ICANN63 (October 2018) and the *Final Report* delivered to the GNSO Council for its consideration by the end of January / beginning of February 2019.
The third deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be an*Initial Report *outlining aproposed model [PL1] [DK2] of a system for providing accredited access to non-public registration data, where items having Full Consensus of the group are:
Other point I made was concerning the use of "registration" vs "registrant" data. For the most part the Temp Spec addresses Registrant data (and this is what is in dispute) not the full registration data which includes generated , register, and registry data.
We should reference registrant data unless we the topic includes all of the fields in the record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[PL1]Not clear what the “the proposed model” is? Should it be “a proposed model”?
[DK2]Corrected to “a proposed model”
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Thanks Keith.
We can support my alternative language in J, even though I think the issue of harmonization is an important one the WG should consider. We can’t support Pam’s proposed language, so hopefully, Pam can agree that my alternative language is acceptable.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>] *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58 AM *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM *To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM *To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or definedreconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
/"The EPDP Team shall respect the //timelines//and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." /
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19^th .
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Thanks for your work here, Keith. I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons. Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered. Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose? Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to... ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
"The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment."
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0)
---------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Thanks Ayden. Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute. Best to all, Paul Paul D. McGrady Partner Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 312-558-5963 F: +1 312-558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Thanks for your work here, Keith. I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons. Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered. Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose? Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to... ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Lets be fair...we have been objecting to this parallel process from the get-go. As I said on the panel in Panama, there is a price to be paid for not recognizing the reality of data protection law, and refusing to move in time. We are now behind the proverbial 8-ball. That does not mean we can pull off a miracle here. Stephanie On 2018-07-16 17:25, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Ayden.
Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute.
Best to all,
Paul
*Paul D. McGrady *
*Partner*
Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 312-558-5963
F: +1 312-558-5700
Bio <http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard <http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email <mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com <http://www.winston.com>
Winston & Strawn LLP
*From:*Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Cc:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Thanks for your work here, Keith.
I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons.
Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered.
Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose?
Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
[1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to...
ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
*To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
*To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or definedreconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
/"The EPDP Team shall respect the //timelines//and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." /
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19^th .
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith
*Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM
*To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>
*Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
We are being fair and the BC has been objecting to the access piece being left off the scope of the ePDP from the start. We have been behind your proverbial 8-ball for years but it is not the time to unfairly focus on a piece of this issue and refuse to recognize the need for access. A second temp spec may be in order. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Lets be fair...we have been objecting to this parallel process from the get-go. As I said on the panel in Panama, there is a price to be paid for not recognizing the reality of data protection law, and refusing to move in time. We are now behind the proverbial 8-ball. That does not mean we can pull off a miracle here.
Stephanie On 2018-07-16 17:25, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Ayden.
Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute.
Best to all,
Paul
*Paul D. McGrady *
*Partner*
Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 312-558-5963
F: +1 312-558-5700
Bio <http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard <http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email <pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com <http://www.winston.com>
[image: Winston & Strawn LLP]
*From:* Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com <icann@ferdeline.com>]
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Cc:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Thanks for your work here, Keith.
I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons.
Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered.
Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose?
Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
[1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file- attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf
ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
*To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
*To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith < kdrazek@verisign.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
*"The EPDP Team shall respect the **timelines** and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." *
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org < marika.konings@icann.org>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith
*Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM
*To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
*Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing listEpdp-dt@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi all, The current version of the scope document (attached) is the result of several weeks of work and substantial compromise, and, as discussed on our Wednesday Drafting Team call, the deadline for substantive comment was Friday. I worked over the weekend to incorporate the comments I received, doing my very best to find the right balance. I believe the scope section is as close as we will get without putting our Thursday vote at serious and certain risk. We are likely all equally unhappy with various parts of it, but sometimes that’s the nature of our work. I am finished with the scope document and it is now with Council leadership and staff for adding to the master Charter document. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, Keith From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:54 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope We are being fair and the BC has been objecting to the access piece being left off the scope of the ePDP from the start. We have been behind your proverbial 8-ball for years but it is not the time to unfairly focus on a piece of this issue and refuse to recognize the need for access. A second temp spec may be in order. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Lets be fair...we have been objecting to this parallel process from the get-go. As I said on the panel in Panama, there is a price to be paid for not recognizing the reality of data protection law, and refusing to move in time. We are now behind the proverbial 8-ball. That does not mean we can pull off a miracle here. Stephanie On 2018-07-16 17:25, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Ayden. Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute. Best to all, Paul Paul D. McGrady Partner Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 312-558-5963 F: +1 312-558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com><mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Thanks for your work here, Keith. I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons. Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered. Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose? Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to... ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:To:Epdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0> _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
I agree with Paul section J is critical to the BC. There are many questions in this charter that rely on the answers from another question. We have to start somewhere and much thought has gone into drafting the scope. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:25 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Ayden.
Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute.
Best to all,
Paul
*Paul D. McGrady *
*Partner*
Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 312-558-5963
F: +1 312-558-5700
Bio <http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard <http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email <pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com <http://www.winston.com>
[image: Winston & Strawn LLP]
*From:* Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Cc:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Thanks for your work here, Keith.
I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons.
Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered.
Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose?
Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
[1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file- attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf
ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
*To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little
*Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
*To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith < kdrazek@verisign.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
*"The EPDP Team shall respect the **timelines** and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." *
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org < marika.konings@icann.org>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith
*Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM
*To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
*Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
I feel very strongly that Section J) is redundant. I have just re-read the charter, and I feel like we could merge Section J) with the Section "System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data." This would actually be the more appropriate home for these questions. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 11:50 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Paul section J is critical to the BC. There are many questions in this charter that rely on the answers from another question. We have to start somewhere and much thought has gone into drafting the scope.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:25 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Ayden.
Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute.
Best to all,
Paul
Paul D. McGrady
Partner
Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 312-558-5963
F: +1 312-558-5700
[Bio](http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html) | [VCard](http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf) | [Email](mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com) | [winston.com](http://www.winston.com)
[Winston & Strawn LLP]
From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; pam.little@alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Thanks for your work here, Keith.
I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons.
Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered.
Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose?
Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
[1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to...
ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
To: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
"The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment."
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
[To:Epdp-dt@icann.org](mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org) <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
From: Drazek, Keith
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt@icann.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi Paul, Thank you for the feedback. To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service. More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-05jul1...). Specifically: 1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers. The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance. I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com <PMcGrady@winston.com>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Colleagues, We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days. We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens. We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up. Best wishes, Heather On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thank you for the feedback.
To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service.
More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby -05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically:
1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers.
The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance.
I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits.
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com <PMcGrady@winston.com>; PAMELA LITTLE < pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM *To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM *To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith < kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
*"The EPDP Team shall respect the **timelines** and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." *
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org < marika.konings@icann.org>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Very well said Heather. From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Colleagues, We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days. We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens. We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up. Best wishes, Heather On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, Thank you for the feedback. To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service. More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_jelinek-2Dto&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=rZ0OyCS9JwuSdabv4b6EZcmL-H0wrXCUaiB5LqM6zRI&e=>-marby-05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically: 1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers. The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance. I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:To%3APMcGrady@winston.com> <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fepdp-2Ddt-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636673207197019797-26sdata-3D42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5-252BNLhVHYI20lrWnf-252Fgrl3WOpgg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=gTHh8bCtTFVh7WkJ4_Jy7uh2Do3dCGDwaO3qBFfgoE0&e=> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=ZDhwh5kCbJSY5_bt6G5mc1_sdxYwITI5u_TH6ShZjIY&e=>
This group is tasked with (a) difficult goal(s). I share Pam's concern concerning a 'harmonized access' model but this shouldn't prevent this group from starting the work. As long as we keep in mind that we're searching for a WHOIS (access) model that is workable - and legally acceptable - in different jurisdictions, and as long we don't become orthodox in our approaches, we should be able to see a solid outcome emerging. Heather, framed it well in her last email: "We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work." Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 16, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Very well said Heather.
From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Colleagues,
We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days.
We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens.
We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up.
Best wishes,
Heather
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> wrote: Hi Paul,
Thank you for the feedback.
To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service.
More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-05jul1...). Specifically:
1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers.
The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance.
I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits.
Kind regards,
Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com <PMcGrady@winston.com>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards, Keith
From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all, Paul
From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
"The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment."
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th.
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards, Keith
From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org; marika.konings@icann.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks, Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Couldn’t have phrased in better. I appreciate the different views expressed here especially for section J but would rely on the EPDP team to figure the least “unsatisfactory one” out as they move forward. Or come back for guidance if needed. Regards, Philippe From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:12 PM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope This group is tasked with (a) difficult goal(s). I share Pam's concern concerning a 'harmonized access' model but this shouldn't prevent this group from starting the work. As long as we keep in mind that we're searching for a WHOIS (access) model that is workable - and legally acceptable - in different jurisdictions, and as long we don't become orthodox in our approaches, we should be able to see a solid outcome emerging. Heather, framed it well in her last email: "We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work." Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone On Jul 16, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Very well said Heather. From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Colleagues, We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days. We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens. We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up. Best wishes, Heather On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, Thank you for the feedback. To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service. More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_jelinek-2Dto&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=rZ0OyCS9JwuSdabv4b6EZcmL-H0wrXCUaiB5LqM6zRI&e=>-marby-05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically: 1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers. The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance. I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:To%3APMcGrady@winston.com> <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fepdp-2Ddt-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636673207197019797-26sdata-3D42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5-252BNLhVHYI20lrWnf-252Fgrl3WOpgg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=gTHh8bCtTFVh7WkJ4_Jy7uh2Do3dCGDwaO3qBFfgoE0&e=> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=ZDhwh5kCbJSY5_bt6G5mc1_sdxYwITI5u_TH6ShZjIY&e=> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Also agree The charter and its scope have been the subject of intense discussion for weeks. While the concept of “perfection” is nice it’s impossible. What we seem to have reached at this stage is about as close to it as we can expect to get. If the WG has issues they can come back to Council with queries or seek guidance. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> Date: Tuesday 17 July 2018 at 13:27 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: "Epdp-dt@icann.org" <Epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Couldn’t have phrased in better. I appreciate the different views expressed here especially for section J but would rely on the EPDP team to figure the least “unsatisfactory one” out as they move forward. Or come back for guidance if needed. Regards, Philippe From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:12 PM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope This group is tasked with (a) difficult goal(s). I share Pam's concern concerning a 'harmonized access' model but this shouldn't prevent this group from starting the work. As long as we keep in mind that we're searching for a WHOIS (access) model that is workable - and legally acceptable - in different jurisdictions, and as long we don't become orthodox in our approaches, we should be able to see a solid outcome emerging. Heather, framed it well in her last email: "We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work." Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone On Jul 16, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Very well said Heather. From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Colleagues, We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days. We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens. We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up. Best wishes, Heather On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, Thank you for the feedback. To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service. More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_jelinek-2Dto&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=rZ0OyCS9JwuSdabv4b6EZcmL-H0wrXCUaiB5LqM6zRI&e=>-marby-05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically: 1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers. The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance. I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:To%3APMcGrady@winston.com> <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fepdp-2Ddt-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636673207197019797-26sdata-3D42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5-252BNLhVHYI20lrWnf-252Fgrl3WOpgg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=gTHh8bCtTFVh7WkJ4_Jy7uh2Do3dCGDwaO3qBFfgoE0&e=> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=ZDhwh5kCbJSY5_bt6G5mc1_sdxYwITI5u_TH6ShZjIY&e=> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Thanks to all of the small team for your dedication above and beyond the call of duty, not least to Heather and Keith. In our own words, we’re asking the EPDP Team to be “willing to work, in good faith, toward consensus solutions during the life of the EPDP...” so Council itself can’t do any less! Keeping our collective good faith and good will in mind, let’s set this ball rolling so that we can begin the substantive work. Best Marie From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:31 PM To: philippe.fouquart@orange.com; Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Also agree The charter and its scope have been the subject of intense discussion for weeks. While the concept of “perfection” is nice it’s impossible. What we seem to have reached at this stage is about as close to it as we can expect to get. If the WG has issues they can come back to Council with queries or seek guidance. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Date: Tuesday 17 July 2018 at 13:27 To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: "Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>" <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Couldn’t have phrased in better. I appreciate the different views expressed here especially for section J but would rely on the EPDP team to figure the least “unsatisfactory one” out as they move forward. Or come back for guidance if needed. Regards, Philippe From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:12 PM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope This group is tasked with (a) difficult goal(s). I share Pam's concern concerning a 'harmonized access' model but this shouldn't prevent this group from starting the work. As long as we keep in mind that we're searching for a WHOIS (access) model that is workable - and legally acceptable - in different jurisdictions, and as long we don't become orthodox in our approaches, we should be able to see a solid outcome emerging. Heather, framed it well in her last email: "We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work." Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone On Jul 16, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Very well said Heather. From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Colleagues, We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days. We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens. We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up. Best wishes, Heather On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, Thank you for the feedback. To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service. More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_jelinek-2Dto&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=rZ0OyCS9JwuSdabv4b6EZcmL-H0wrXCUaiB5LqM6zRI&e=>-marby-05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically: 1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory. 2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers. The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance. I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 To:PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:To%3APMcGrady@winston.com> <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam and Paul, Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J. Regards, Keith From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Pam, Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with: “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:” Best to all, Paul From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM To: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi Keith Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone…. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fepdp-2Ddt-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636673207197019797-26sdata-3D42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5-252BNLhVHYI20lrWnf-252Fgrl3WOpgg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=gTHh8bCtTFVh7WkJ4_Jy7uh2Do3dCGDwaO3qBFfgoE0&e=> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=ZDhwh5kCbJSY5_bt6G5mc1_sdxYwITI5u_TH6ShZjIY&e=> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Ok, I will surrender to the will of the group (as usual). Just out of interest though, who of you who said lets all trust in good faith are planning to work on the EPDP? there is nothing like eating your own cooking to improve the drive for perfection..... The purpose of a well scoped Charter and set of deliverables is to make the task of the working group clear and simple. I humbly submit, for the record, that we have left a number of vague terms and timing criteria in there, and it may cause problems later. A stitch in time saves nine, as the old proverb says. Cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2018-07-17 08:11, Erika Mann wrote:
This group is tasked with (a) difficult goal(s). I share Pam's concern concerning a 'harmonized access' model but this shouldn't prevent this group from starting the work.
As long as we keep in mind that we're searching for a WHOIS (access) model that is workable - and legally acceptable - in different jurisdictions, and as long we don't become orthodox in our approaches, we should be able to see a solid outcome emerging.
Heather, framed it well in her last email:
"We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work."
Kind regards, Erika
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 16, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
Very well said Heather.
*From:*Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM *To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Colleagues,
We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the final 3 days.
We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box opens.
We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up.
Best wishes,
Heather
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thank you for the feedback.
To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even have a WHOIS service.
More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidanceregarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_jelinek-2Dto&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wQW2DCZFumEvcBcjrLYjWHhNX_WnA3nWfj5ZdnjZDak&s=rZ0OyCS9JwuSdabv4b6EZcmL-H0wrXCUaiB5LqM6zRI&e=>-marby-05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically:
1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not mandatory.
2. The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to the data controllers.
The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance.
I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits.
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58
To:PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:To%3APMcGrady@winston.com> <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>
Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam and Paul,
Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section J.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM *To:* Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t get that, we would be OK with:
“Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:”
Best to all,
Paul
*From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM *To:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi Keith
Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
"J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or definedreconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:"
It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
/"The EPDP Team shall respect the //timelines//and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." /
The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>>
Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
To:Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt@icann.org> <Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>
Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hello again everyone….
Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19^th .
I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> *Cc:* Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org>; marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
Regards,
Keith
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
<Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
participants (12)
-
Austin, Donna -
Ayden Férdeline -
Drazek, Keith -
Erika Mann -
Heather Forrest -
Marie Pattullo -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Pam Little -
philippe.fouquart＠orange.com -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi