October 2018 - Gnso-epdp-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Request for independent legal counsel to assist the EPDP
by Terri Agnew Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Dear all, A call will be scheduled on Wednesday, 10 October 2018 invite to be sent shortly to the NTFY list. Leadership requests that if additional details can be provided in the request for legal expertise in order to flesh out a statement of work, that input would be appreciated. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 2:55 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Request for independent legal counsel to assist the EPDP Thanks, Stephanie (and to those who collaborated on this). We have anticipated this request since the meeting in Los Angeles but our thinking on how to best execute on it has not fully evolved. Nor does the request provide the information necessary to write the Statement of Work necessary to procure the requisite skill set. In order to rapidly create that document in a form to everyone’s satisfaction, I am asking the Support team to set up an Adobe Connect room for early in the week for anyone interested so that we can jointly form a statement of work. I’d like to schedule it at a time convenient for Rafik, who has been attending calls at midnight and 6AM everyday. I would ask interested members of the EPDP team to provide bullets that describe the legal expertise required. Without opining on the legal expertise and knowledge requirement, here is what I am for and not for as far as the operational aspects of this procurement. I think that appropriate legal expertise will increase our effectiveness / efficiency. The charter (rightly or wrongly) asks us to make a number of legal determinations, I am for a reserved resource that can provide detailed, on-point, written responses to written questions within 24 hours of receipt. If necessary, we can request an in-person briefing on a specific issue. I am not for having an attorney attend all our meetings, whether they be telephonic or face-to-face. Here is my rationale for this: 1) Orally-posed questions are often poorly formed and not sufficiently well-considered to elicit the desired information. The legal response is often “it depends.” Written questions require appropriate reflection on the desired information and will serve to promote an understanding of an issue across the entire group. 2) A corollary to the point above, vaguely worded questions, combined with on-hand counsel are likely to result in time-consuming back-and forth discussion. We attend meetings to discuss policy, not legal issues. (It goes without saying - but I cannot help myself - that outside counsel will have the incentive to extend such discussions.) 3) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The mere act of observing any event will affect that event. I believe, especially after witnessing some of the IANA transition / accountability discussions that this principle applies to ICANN discussions. I.e., having on-hand counsel would change the nature and content of our discussions - and retard progress. 4) Cost - benefit. Most all of us have employed outside counsel and with good reason - to provide specialized expertise when needed. It is likely we will have periods where there are more legal questions and then periods where there are not. I do think we have a duty to act in a fiscally responsible way and employ outside counsel in the same way that we would do in our own organizations. I believe that using outside counsel as outlined here is the most effective and efficient path for our group. I hope you find this constructive. Best regards, Kurt On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hello everyone, please find attached a request to hire outside counsel with expertise in data protection law, to assist us with the analysis on the EPDP. The RySG, RrSG, and NCSG representatives on the EPDP are all in support of this proposal, which as you know was foreseen in the Charter and in our earlier GNSO discussions. Thank you. Stephanie Perrin <EPDP note re EPDP Counsel.docx>

1 0

Updated lawful basis memo
by Caitlin Tubergen Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Dear All, Following up on an action item from Tuesday’s call, please find the updated Lawful Basis memo, which now includes updated processing activities/rationales as well as notations when disagreement on the identified lawful basis was expressed. Please note the following when reviewing the document: If you believe any of the newly-identified processing activities require the workbook data elements to be updated, please provide requested edits and the accompanying rationale to the list. If no updates are provided, we will assume the previously-designated data elements are sufficient for the updated processing activities. At least one member of the EPDP Team requested to add a new processing activity to Purpose M; specifically, Margie noted an additional processing activity is transmission of registration information to the entity who files a UDRP/URS complaint. It is staff’s understanding that the UDRP Provider interacts directly with the registrar in order to obtain/confirm relevant registered name holder data, and the registrar, in turn, provides the relevant data to the Provider (who will then forward the info to the complainant or complainant’s counsel). As the disclosure of registration data to a UDRP/URS provider is already noted in the memo, it doesn’t appear that this additional processing activity is necessary, particularly because Purpose B may cover a situation where a trademark holder may contact the registrar directly for disclosure of non-public data. If this is either an inaccurate representation of the request for a new processing activity under M, or an inaccurate description of how data is conjunction with a UDRP/URS proceeding, please let us know. If any members believe a processing activity(ies) is missing, please reply to the list. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry and Caitlin

1 0

RrSG Alternate replacement EPDP Team
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Dear all, Jeff Yeh is stepping down from his position as RrSG Alternate on the EPDP Team. Volker Greimann (SOI<https://community.icann.org/x/foBwAg>) will be replacing him effective as of today. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Additional responses from ICANN Compliance
by Marika Konings Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached the responses from the ICANN Compliance Team to some of the additional questions that were raised during Thursday’s meeting. We have also posted these here: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Small Team #3 call/ Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP Small Team Meeting #3 Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 13:00 UTC via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8AO8BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC chat from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Small Team Meeting #2 held Friday, 05 October 2018
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email. The MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Small Team #2 call held on Friday, 05 October 2018 at 13:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7gO8BQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-05oct18… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2g9i5rbs7h/<https://participate.icann.org/p2g9i5rbs7h/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0d3562f1d64cdcdc…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

EPDP Fact Sheet - September 2018
by Berry Cobb Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

EPDP Members and Alternates, Please find attached the September 2018 release of the EPDP Fact Sheet. A few weeks ago, we released the August 2018 version that was meant to show a baseline of the budget line items allocated to the EPDP. Context of the monthly Fact Sheet are attached below. For the September version, you'll mostly notice that actual expense from professional services and travel are starting to appear. Full expenses from the LA Face to Face will not appear until the October version. Telcom, CBI, and the online training make up the actual expenses at the close of September. Lastly, travel funding for BCN now appears as committed. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 09:50 To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Fact Sheet EPDP Members and Alternates, Please find attached the first release of the EPDP Fact Sheet. Purpose: This is a summary document (page 1) of the EPDP that highlights Meeting Activity, Status, Milestone acheivement, and most importantly financial resources. Detailed project planning and status can be found via other work products. Unique to the Fact Sheet are details of available budget versus actual spend. Funding Source & Amount: On 7 August 2018, Cherine Chalaby of the ICANN Board notified <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-t o-gnso-council-07aug18-en.pdf> the GNSO Council of supplemental budget available to execute the EPDP. In short, $590,000 was allotted to this effort to cover expenses related to professional services, telcom services, external experts, face to face travel support, and contingencies. Detailed allotment to budget line items can be found in Cherine's letter, as well as, pages 2 & 3 of the Fact Sheet. Project Cost Support Team (PCST): The concept of the PCST was first used for the CCWG on ICANN's Accountability where funds were allotted to that effort. The effort will be replicated here which is a first for the GNSO. Members of the PCST consist of EDPD leadership, Council leadership, ICANN Finance and ICANN Policy staff support. As noted in Cherine's letter, budget responsibilities lie with David Olive, SVP of Policy Development, who will coordinate with the PCST in review of requests and ultimate approval of expenses. Publication Frequency: The Fact Sheet will be published shortly after the close of the prior month. Also note that ICANN Finance will also provide financial reporting that will compliment the Fact Sheet as actual expenses are entered and reconciled in ICANN's finance system. Key Points to Fact Sheet - version1: . EPDP Status is a high-level summary of % Time Elapsed and not that of milestones achieved. This is a time based statistic because the EPDP and community have until 24 May 2019 to accomplish the task. This section also includes a Budget Spent vs. Committed percentage. Committed means that agreements for spend have set in motion, such as supported travel, telcom services, or contracts signed with vendors. . Section I Meeting Stats is a summary of meeting/conference call hours spent activity. . Section II Financial Resources is a break out of budgeted vs. committed vs. actual expense. It is divided between professional services and travel. This first version is intended to show a baseline of the entrire budget without any expenses. As noted above, the total amount is $590,000. However, given the urgency to prepare for the LA face to face, $87,000 shows as committed. . Section III Milestones is a high-level summary of milestones accomplished by phase including weighting. The EPDP is essentially broken down into three primary deliverables: Triage Report, Initial Report, and Final Report. Note, that this current version omits milestones relating to the issue of access as per the charter, the primary deliverbles must be delivered to meet the 24 May 2019 expiration of the Temporary Specification. . Page 2 is a detailed breakout of budget line items releated to professional services. While there are funds committed to training, telcom, and mediation, the commitments and any actuals will not appear until the September 2018 version of the Fact Sheet. . Page 3 is a detailed breakout of budget line items related to travel support. As noted above, $87K has been committed in support of the LA face to face. Any actuals and the committed funds for Barcelona, ICANN63 will appear in the September version. Stay tuned for the September version as it will contain much more information related to in-flight budget activities. The release should occur by the close of the first week in October. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb

1 0

Small Team #2 - geographic basis
by Caitlin Tubergen Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

Dear All, In advance of tomorrow’s Small Team 2 meeting (geographic basis), please find the following background document attached. We will use this document during our discussion. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry and Caitlin

1 0

Notes & action items from today's meeting - 4 October 2018
by Caitlin Tubergen Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. If you are interested in signing up for tomorrow’s small team meeting regarding the applicability of data processing requirements and if the contracted parties should have the ability to differentiate on a geographic basis, please sign up here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ChEYy-cZmT3qTD62-HsoVmddD96m6cbkSOv5dmA…. As a reminder, our next plenary call will be Tuesday, 9 October at 1300 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry and Caitlin EPDP Team Meeting #17 4 October 2018 High-level Notes/Action Items Action Items At the ICANN meeting in Barcelona, there is a High-Interest Topic Session for the EPDP on Monday, 22 October from 15:15 - 16:45 in Room 111/112. Leadership’s current thinking is to include on the panel a number of Team Members to present during this session. If any Team Members have suggestions for this session, please provide them to the list. ICANN Compliance to provide a general overview regarding how data escrow files are used in the course of an audit. Included within the overview, ICANN Compliance should include more information around the potential decryption of data escrow deposits during the course of an audit. ICANN Compliance to provide more specificity regarding necessary retention periods, and the rationale for retention after the domain registration is deleted. This information is necessary to justify any retention period to a DPA. Providing use cases where registration data is needed after the registration expiration would be helpful to explain relevant retention periods. Questions for ICANN Org ICANN org should have a general retention policy. As part of its GDPR-compliant data processing regime. If so, can this be provided to the EPDP Team? We have spent most of this meeting exploring the role of compliance at ICANN, in order to support a proposal that ICANN has an implicit contract with the registrant and that therefore 6 1 b applies as a grounds for processing. This would also facilitate ICANN operating a UAM on behalf of those who want the data. It might also explain Goran’s initiative in seeking some kind of recognition by EU authorities that ICANN has a kind of quasi-regulator status, as the authority vested with the responsibility to manage the DNS. Given that all of this is outside the current configuration of ICANN as data controller, which would be more clear had we done a DPIA and had we adequate data maps to work with….can we either get back to our Charter questions that we were mandated to address by the GNSO, or get a full explanation of what is going on and why we continue to be focused on the access question. Is there a date limit for ICANN accepting a complaint or request to audit regarding a registration that has been deleted? If not, what is the case of the longest period of a deleted registration that was accepted and acted upon? Notes These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/2IpHBQ. 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking, and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair We need to change the agenda slightly, as we did not receive the homework for Purpose E (Registry data escrow). Please review the recent answers received from ICANN org re: data retention. https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Input+from+ICANN+Org ICANN org will present on Purpose F, and Kristina R. will present on Purpose N. There is a High Interest Session in Barcelona. If any EPDP Team Members have suggestions for this session, please provide them to this list. To quickly recap action items, add a second processing activity to Purpose C workbook. Please read Alan Greenberg’s recent email regarding Purpose C. Question: Re: ICANN Leadership to consider ICANN contracting directly with registrants -- when did this become an action item? Answer: After discussion on this, Leadership is to look into this further. 3. Review data elements workbook for Purpose E (Ry Escrow, EBERO) Objective of discussion: (1) Review data elements workbook for purpose E as completed by registries (2) Agree on data elements needed for this purpose as well as responses to different questions in data elements workbook a. Review data elements workbook for purpose E b. Discuss any outstanding items / questions c. Finalize data elements workbook for purpose E Taken off agenda as no homework was received. 4. Review data elements workbook for Purpose F (ICANN Compliance) Objective of discussion: (1) Review data elements workbook for purpose F as completed by ICANN org (2) Agree on data elements needed for this purpose as well as responses to different questions in data elements workbook a. Review data elements workbook for purpose F ICANN Compliance filled out the workbook. Is this lawful against GDPR? Yes. Article 6(1)(f). This is not in violation of ICANN bylaws as compliance function is within ICANN bylaws. Responsible parties: Compliance will collect data associated with the third party complainant - it may include name, email, postal address, org info. Fax # is generally not collected. Depending on the nature of the issue and how much info is provided, ICANN Compliance may request further personal information, such as copies of emails. Following receipt of this information, the complaint will be forwarded to the contracted party (provided it is within ICANN's scope and remit). In doing so, ICANN may ask the contracted party to provide information that may contain personal data. In the processing of these complaints, ICANN may look at registration data, provided it is publicly available. This data is not shared with anyone else, including the complainant unless consent is given. Pro-active monitoring such as audits - there are typically two audits per year for Rrs/Rys. During this process, several questions are asked, and Rrs/Rys may be asked to provide personal data as part of the audit. Data escrow files are also collected during audits - this is done to cross-reference information that is recorded elsewhere. Question 4: is processing necessary to meet the purpose? Yes. Is transfer necessary? Yes. Publication by Rr/Ry required? No. However, Compliance would need access to non-public data upon request. Are there any picket fence questions? No. Data retention requirements to meet the purpose? How long is the data needed after expiration of a domain name? Additional information to adequately document the purpose? No. EPDP Team Questions/Feedback Re: two audits per year, does that mean two per contracted party, or two in total? Answer: contracts allow two audits per CP per year. Generally speaking, compliance does not audit the same contracted party twice per year, unless there is a remediation issue and then the contracted party may be retested on a limited scope. Does Compliance perform validation/verification during an audit? How does Compliance clarify inaccuracies? The 2013 RAA has a Whois Accuracy Program Specification, which requires Rrs to perform validation and verification of WHOIS contact information. Verification comes from the registrant to ensure that email/phone is responded to affirmatively; validation is something the Rr conducts to ensure the format of the WHOIS info matches certain specified standards, i.e., does the postal address conform to the postal address standards for that location? As part of complaint processing, Compliance asks Rrs to confirm they properly validated and verified. Verification could include asking the Rr to provide evidence of how this verification occured. For validation, Compliance will ask for information of how it was validated - how does this conform to certain standards. Does ICANN Compliance as part of an audit pull a segment of data escrow data and decrypt or otherwise make that information in plain text to compare against public records? This may be an area where Rrs would not be comfortable with that type of use. This is limited to the Ry audit space, so the request is only for Ry DEAs to provide a sample of domain names. Primarily, the use is to confirm the same domain name numbers are contained in the zonefile and BRDA. Regarding the answer to question 1, who does the balancing test? What if a registrar denies ICANN Compliance access to data? Action Item: ICANN Compliance to gather more information regarding how data escrow files are used in the course of an audit. For example, are escrow files decrypted? If a CP was challenging ICANN based on a lawful basis, this would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and collaborate with the CP to better understand the issue. There may be other information that could be asked or provided to ICANN. Is there any work being done on other departments within ICANN re: other departments' use of data? Please see: https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Input+from+ICANN+Org Re: data collected from reporter/complainant, that data is out of scope of this EPDP. There are two areas where this team may be interested: (1) in following up on a complaint, how does ICANN Compliance use registration data? (2) in the response to an audit, how does Compliance use registration data? How does ICANN access registration data to follow up on the ARS system before 25 May and after 25 May? Pre-May 25, the information was publicly available, so Compliance would query a registrar's WHOIS server and compare with the ARS testing. Post-25 May, if the data is still publicly available, the same process would work. If the data is redacted, Compliance now uses an inquiry vs. a notice. An inquiry is used when information is still being gathered and is used to ask the registrar if the data has changed since the ARS reporting issue. In thinking about lawful basis, this purpose protects the registrant to ensure the contract is properly performed, so the processing is necessary for performance of the contract, so 6(1)(b) is more appropriate than a 6(1)(f). Is this the right purpose, and is there an implication that a 6(1)(f) is used here? Re: lawful basis of this purpose, ICANN is taking responsibility for the processing of the data for the compliance purpose. 6(1)(f) is the correct purpose here. Question 8 talks about data retention requirements. 6(1)(f) makes more sense for the compliance purpose. Whatever retention period after expiration is decided is what Compliance will enforce based on, so this is a better question for contracted parties. How long does Compliance keep the data after a matter is closed? Data is purged after audit is closed. In terms of complaint processing, that timing could vary. It is not possible to make a clear-cut determination, so whatever is decided is how Compliance will enforce against. Re: lawful basis, are there any additional thoughts to share? Should this be a 6(1)(f)? 6(1)(b) is a high bar, so it will be interpreted quick strictly. Putting something in a contract does not make it lawful. 6(1)(f) seems to be the appropriate legal basis for the compliance purpose. The group needs to take into account how a DPA would look at this. A DPA will likely say this is not necessary for performance of a contract. Is 6(1)(f) a legitimate lawful basis? It may be a 6(1)(b) basis for some. How can the concern be addressed that ICANN cannot get access to the data – is there anyone who could suggest a path forward? There should be a clear legitimate interest here – if there isn’t, there is something wrong with the process. What would compliance do if a contracted party decides to withhold information under 6(1)(f)? Compliance would work with the contracted party and try to understand the issue. For example, is the contracted party concerned with publication? Compliance may ask for other data that could fulfill the complaint/issue. Is this a stumbling block for every purpose that has a 6(1)(f) legal basis? Are there any circumstances where everyone will be comfortable with 6(1)(f) with a legal basis for the processing activity? Conclusions: 6(1)(f) is an appropriate legal basis for the compliance purpose. Some believe it may be a 6(1)(b). There are concerns that 6(1)(f) may cause issues where the complainant says the privacy rights outweigh the legitimate interest and therefore data cannot be provided. This is a way to move forward with this issue, but everyone should do their homework. How should the group move forward with the data retention question? Compliance will enforce whatever the retention requirement is. The compliance activity is not giving a specific reason to retain data beyond the life of the registration, except in cases where this is ongoing compliance activity, so perhaps the group can make note of retaining data in case of an ongoing compliance activity. There is retention beyond the registration and retention beyond compliance complaints about that registration. There may be an interplay b/w these two things – there may be an expired registration, but there is a complaint open about that registration – the data may need to be retained after the expiration. Compliance will work with whatever the retention period is. It would be better for Compliance to propose relevant retention periods – the EPDP Team cannot set arbitrary limits for the team. There are several things that could happen post-expiry, such as required notices, redemption, etc., where the data would need to be held. This group needs a full explanation from ICANN or go back to the Charter questions that exist at the moment. Is there any data on how many complaints use expired data – if so, how often does Compliance have to go back and the average length of time they go back? This type of data does not exist and this would likely be a very large undertaking, but Compliance has not run into issues of not having data be available under the current policies (two years), and any time period b/w six months and two years should be OK. Is there anything else that needs to change on this sheet? b. Discuss any outstanding items / questions c. Finalize data elements workbook for purpose F 5. Review data elements workbook for Purpose N (registry eligibility requirements) Objective of discussion: (1) Review data elements workbook for purpose N as completed by registries (2) Agree on data elements needed for this purpose as well as responses to different questions in data elements workbook a. Review data elements workbook for purpose N b. Discuss any outstanding items / questions c. Finalize data elements workbook for purpose N The view within RySG is that this is a Ry purpose, and registrars do not think this is a Rr purpose. Because the group is still going through the lawful basis discussion, 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(f) are both mentioned, though registries think this is most likely a 6(1)(f). Is the purpose in violation of ICANN’s bylaws? No. Questions/Concerns re: this overview: This is a legitimate registry purpose, but a conversation with Kristina may be necessary to better understand why it might be desirable to add new data elements to the RDDS to fulfill these requirements. 6. Review data elements workbook for new purpose (research) Objective of discussion: (1) Review data elements workbook for research purpose as completed by Benedict/Farzaneh (2) Agree on data elements needed for this purpose as well as responses to different questions in data elements workbook a. Review data elements workbook for research purpose b. Discuss any outstanding items / questions c. Finalize data elements workbook for research purpose 7. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, 9 October at 13.00 UTC. Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 09 October 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesday’s and Thursday’s at 13:00 UTC via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/KwWrBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0