December 2018 - Gnso-epdp-team

New RrSG Alternate: Sarah Wyld
by James M. Bladel Dec. 18, 2018

Dec. 18, 2018

ePDP Colleagues – As many of you are aware, Lindsay Hamilton-Reid is leaving our merry bunch for a new role outside the industry. Our shiny new RrSG Alternate is Sarah Wyld. Sarah is from Tucows and based in Toronto. We thank Lindsay for her contributions, and welcome Sarah! Thank you— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy

1 0

Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #35
by Caitlin Tubergen Dec. 18, 2018

Dec. 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the proposed agenda for our next meeting below. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Meeting #35 Agenda Tuesday, 18 December 2018 Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) Review of outstanding action items Other updates, if applicable Announce LC Members and introduce agenda for first meeting (EDPB questions) Review of commonly-asked Google Form questions Continue review of list of topics for further discussion Privacy/Proxy Services - how the P/P records appear in the public WHOIS Current Language in Temp Spec - Appendix A, Section 2.6: Notwithstanding Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this Appendix, in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. Margie to introduce outstanding issue for discussion Proposed outcome: confirm requirement [BC/IPC support confirmation.] Discuss next steps Registrant Consent to Publication – option for registrants to request to have all of their RDS data published Current Language in Temp Spec, Section 7.2.1/ Appendix C – Section 2.3: As soon as commercially reasonable, Registrar MUST provide the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder to provide its Consent to publish the additional contact information outlined in Section 2.3 of Appendix A for the Registered Name Holder. Margie to introduce issue: Whether registrars should give the registrant the option to opt in to having their WHOIS Contact Data be published rather than be redacted. This is an issue that would be available to both natural persons and legal persons. Proposed outcome: confirm this requirement [IPC/BC/SSAC/an EPDP member of RrSG also support confirmation.] Consent by the Registrant to Publish and/or Disclose for technical contact Current language in Temp Spec, Section 7.2.1/ Appendix C – Section 2.3 contains this requirement: Registrar MAY provide the opportunity for the Admin/Tech and/or other contacts to provide Consent to publish additional contact information outlined in Section 2.4 of Appendix A. Margie to introduce issue: Whether registrars should seek consent from those listed as additional contacts (admin/tech) to having their information as reflected in the Contact data be published rather than be redacted. This is an issue that would be available to both natural persons and legal persons. Proposed outcome: confirm this requirement [IPC/BC/SSAC support confirmation.] Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 14.00 UTC Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

5 5

Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2019 - Nominations Open
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 17, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-12-17-en Nomination Period Opens For ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award | Award Targeted for ICANN65 | Nominations Close 22 March 2019 Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Launched in 2014 at ICANN50 in London, the Multistakeholder Ethos Award recognizes ICANNparticipants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email ethosaward2019(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2019@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2019 at ICANN65 Marrakech. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw> Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…>

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 18 December 2018
by Julie Bisland Dec. 17, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays 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/BQvVBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Additional Information - Accuracy
by Margie Milam Dec. 14, 2018

Dec. 14, 2018

Hi- I was asked to provide further background for the accuracy discussion after yesterday’s EPDP call. Here is some information to frame our further analysis: SCOPE This EPDP was chartered “to determine if the Temporary Specification...should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law.” In order to fully comply with GDPR, data -- the very subject of this EPDP -- is required to be accurate. According to Article 5.1(d) of the GDPR, personal data shall be "accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay." Article 39 also has similar language. Within the GDPR, this is the second of three principles about data standards, along with data minimization and storage limitation that needs to be addressed. While we have had much discussion about data minimization and storage limitations, what’s clearly missing to finalize our deliberations and output about data standards is our discussion about data accuracy requirements. The ico. (Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK) points out in its writings on “Principle (d): Accuracy”<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ico.org.uk_for-2Dorgan…> that one of the new features of GDPR as compared to the principles under its predecessor is that there is now a “clearer proactive obligation to take reasonable steps to delete or correct inaccurate personal data.” The ICO notes that while “[t]here are clear links here to the right to rectification, which gives individuals the right to have inaccurate personal data corrected” … “[i]n order to ensure that your records are not inaccurate or misleading in [the case of personal data someone else provides], you must: … * take reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure the accuracy of the information; and * carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of the information.” The ico. goes on to say that “The more important it is that the personal data is accurate, the greater the effort you should put into ensuring its accuracy. So if you are using the data to make decisions that may significantly affect the individual concerned or others, you need to put more effort into ensuring accuracy. This may mean you have to get independent confirmation that the data is accurate.” We can all agree that the accuracy of domain name ownership is paramount to collection of WHOIS/Registered Name Holder data in the first instance. In addition, since this data will be used by others (with a lawful interest), ensuring that it is accurate for them is relevant. This isn’t a new concept for discussion, as you may recall that the European Commission’s technical input on ICANN's proposed GDPR-compliant WHOIS models<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> underscored the GDPR's "Accuracy" principle and made clear that “reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the accuracy of any personal data obtained” for WHOIS databases and that ICANN should be sure to incorporate this requirement in whatever model it adopts. The ico. points out that<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ico.org.uk_for-2Dorgan…> “[o]ne of the biggest changes introduced by the GDPR is around accountability – a new data protection principle that says organisations are responsible for, and must be able to demonstrate, compliance with the other principles ... [y]ou now need to be proactive about data protection, and evidence the steps you take to meet your obligations and protect people’s rights.” With the main thrust of the EPDP being to ensure that the WHOIS policies ICANN and the contracted parties adopt comply with the principles of the GDPR, these accountability principles shouldn’t be taken lightly. Consistent with these commitments and the GDPR, accuracy is an issue fully within scope of the EPDP so that ICANN and contracted parties proactively address how they will ensure the accuracy of data in the first place, not just how they rectify inaccurate data brought to their attention after collection -- we simply see no way around the EPDP affirmatively addressing the GDPR’s accuracy principle in our deliberations and output. Especially since accuracy is addressed in the Temp Spec itself (see 4.1), which states ICANN is responsible for “Maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning registered names and name servers”. OUTPUT/COMPLIANCE Dbata accuracy needs to be addressed both proactively as well as retroactively. As the ico. states<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ico.org.uk_for-2Dorgan…> “Accountability is not a box-ticking exercise. Being responsible for compliance with the GDPR means that you need to be proactive and organised about your approach to data protection, while demonstrating your compliance means that you must be able to evidence the steps you take to comply.” The ico. goes onto say that “Documenting this information is a great way to take stock of what you do with personal data. Knowing what information you have, where it is and what you do with it makes it much easier for you to comply with other aspects of the GDPR such as making sure that the information you hold about people is accurate and secure.” (emphasis added) To that end, the WHOIS policy developed by the EPDP needs to incorporate steps for contracted parties to be in compliance with the GDPR – accuracy being one facet of compliance. The WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System Reports showed that the accuracy levels are unacceptably low. We see the policy discussion on accuracy focused in three areas: Collection: At intake, we should consider whether the current forms of validation are sufficient. In this regard, it may be useful to include in the ccTLD survey a request to see what validation is done by the EU based ccTLDs. Maintenance: Once data is collected, Article 5 of the GDPR says that data must be “kept up to date”, which seemingly requires some sort of process that could be developed. Rectification: Article 5 of the GDPR says that ICANN and the contracted parties must “ensure that personal data that are inaccurate … are erased or rectified without delay” and so, a uniform method to report and rectify inaccurate data could be considered. Because there are so many facets to this conversation, perhaps the best way to address this is to talk about this in Toronto, at our F2F. All the best, Margie

6 9

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Public comment - Google form question
by Caitlin Tubergen Dec. 14, 2018

Dec. 14, 2018

Hi Kristina, Thank you for the question. The short answer is no – yes/no questions are not required to be answered to continue through the Google form. The only exception is the four questions marked with a red asterisk. These questions appear on pp. 1-2 of the form. Specifically, a commenter must fill out their email address, name, affiliation, and answer yes/no to specify if they are answering questions on behalf of another group. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Rosette, Kristina" <rosettek(a)amazon.com> Date: Friday, December 14, 2018 at 8:45 AM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Public comment - Google form question Hi, A question has come up about the Google form being used for public comments: For the “yes/no” questions, is the person completing the form required to select “yes” or “no” in order to progress through the form? Thanks!! Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com | 703.407.1354

1 0

Public comment - Google form question
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 14, 2018

Dec. 14, 2018

Hi, A question has come up about the Google form being used for public comments: For the "yes/no" questions, is the person completing the form required to select "yes" or "no" in order to progress through the form? Thanks!! Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354

1 0

REMINDER: Doodle / Legal Committee Framework (only confirmed reps)
by Terri Agnew Dec. 14, 2018

Dec. 14, 2018

**Reminder, only EPDP Members or Alternates who will be the confirmed rep for each group should complete the doodle. Hello all, Only the confirmed reps for each group, please complete the doodle to schedule a Legal Committee Framework call next week. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/2abn9v99y8kwu8hu I have enabled the time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. With kind regards, Terri From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 8:54 AM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] ACTION REQUIRED - Legal Committee Framework Hi All, Per today's discussion on establishing the standing legal committee framework, please designate one member or alternate from your respective group. The preference is that committee members are currently practicing attorneys. Where one is not available in your group, then please chose a representative that you think is best capable to manage request for legal advice. Please provide the selection for your respective group to the mailing list by 18 December 2018 prior to our next EPDP call. The following list is a suggestion of who might join the committee, but ultimate a decision for you respective group: * Board - Leon * BC - Margie * IPC - Diane * ISPCP - Thomas * NCSG - Tatiana * RySG - Kristina * RrSG - Volker * GAC - Laureen * ALAC - Alan G. * SSAC - Benedict I've also attached the slide deck that outlines the LC framework, process, guidelines, and budget. Thank you. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Thursday, 13 December 2018
by Andrea Glandon Dec. 13, 2018

Dec. 13, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/AgvVBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-13dec18… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p29j1sxckpa/<https://participate.icann.org/p29j1sxckpa/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3407eab64866f47a…> ** 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

ICANN Offices closed from 21 December 2018 EOB to 2 January 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 13, 2018

Dec. 13, 2018

Dear all, ICANN offices will be closed for the end of year break. GNSO staff support will therefore end on Friday 21st December 2018 EOB to resume on Wednesday 2nd January 2019. GNSO Staff would like to seize the opportunity to wish you all the merriest of holidays with your loved ones and the very best wishes for 2019! Kind regards, On behalf of the GNSO team 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