January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Recommendation 14 - Responsible Parties: email discussion
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Hi Everyone: With the goal of progressing (even more) issues via email, the leadership team has considered the discussion during the most recent planary conference call and suggests the following language to capture the agreement in principle that was developed on Recommendation 14 (Responsible Parties). Based on the discussion of the EPDP meeting on 22 Jan 2019, the amendment below is proposed for EPDP Team consideration. Initial Report Language The EPDP Team recommends that the policy includes the following data processing activities as well as responsible parties: <See Initial Report Language>. Plenary Discussion on this Issue It was stated that the EPDP Team documented the data processing activities and responsible parties associated with gTLD registration data based upon data analysis and facts available at the time of the Phase I discussion. The EPDP Team acknowledged that, given the iterative nature between the development of GDPR-compliant agreements and the specification of data processing activities & responsible parties, whatever Recommendation is made at this time is likely to be affected by the completion of the necessary agreements, i.e., that contract development work would confirm and define the roles and responsibilities. Proposed Updated Language: During Phase 1 of its work, the EPDP Team documented the data processing activities and responsible parties associated with gTLD registration data. The EPDP Team, accordingly, recommends the inclusion of the data processing activities and responsible parties, outlined below, to be confirmed and documented in the relevant data processing agreements, noting, however, this Recommendation may be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements (described elsewhere in this report) that would confirm and define the roles and responsibilities. Action Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about these modifications and/or what other aspects of this recommendation should be discussed. If there are additional questions for ICANN Compliance that would serve to inform the deliberations on this recommendation, please share these also. Deadline: Monday, 28 January, additional email discussion might follow depending on responses. Best regards, Kurt

4 3

RrSG Comment on Recommendation 10
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Greetings! Subject to a friendly amendment to part 1, RySG supports the RrSG’s proposed text of Recommendation 10. Our suggested friendly amendment is to specify and quote the relevant language from the Temporary Specification to avoid any future uncertainty. As amended, part 1 below reads: 1. In relation to facilitating email communication between third parties and the Registered Name Holder, the EPDP Team recommends that current requirements in Section 2.5.1 of Appendix A to the Temporary Specification, namely, "Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself", remain in place. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. K From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 4:14 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG Comment on Recommendation 10 Hello All, For Recommendation 10, the RrSG has the following proposed new text: 1) In relation to facilitating email communication between third parties and the Registered Name Holder, the EPDP Team recommends that current requirements in the Temporary Specification that specify that a Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself, remain in place. 2) The EPDP Team recommends Registrars MUST maintain Log Files, which shall not contain any Personal Information, and which shall contain confirmation that a relay of the communication between the requestor and the Registered Name Holder has occurred, not including the origin, recipient, or content of the message. The registrar cannot be reasonably expected to confirm, or attempt to confirm by any means, the receipt of any such relayed communication. 3) DELETE 3 -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG ePDP team" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-epdp-team(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/dd2b3a8708744c1781c4d7d6d8…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/dd2b3a8708744c1781c4d7d6d8…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG ePDP team" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-epdp-team(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/d31260ffcc45439ab74a9c1226…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/d31260ffcc45439ab74a9c1226…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #40
by Marika Konings Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached an updated document for item 3c as, in addition to the comments on the new recommendation in relation to additional purposes, there was also some input received on purpose 1 and a couple of ICANN org questions. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 08:57 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #40 Dear EPDP Team, Please find hereunder the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC. Also take note of the documents that are attached to facilitate deliberations on the different agenda items. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ===================== EPDP Meeting #40 Agenda Tuesday, 29 January 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 1. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Reminder: process for email discussions and upcoming deadlines (see also https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001342.html) * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report and/or revised recommendations * Recommendation 5 – Data elements to be transferred from registrar to registry: the team will review the public comments while small teams will review the data elements (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 12 Reasonable Access (30 minutes) i. Review of updated language circulated by Alex Deacon on behalf of small team - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001327.html (5 minutes) ii. Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 10 minute break * Recommendation #1 – Additional Purposes (20 minutes) * Review input received to date (RrSG, ALAC, NCSG) (5 minutes) (see attached) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 11 – Data retention (20 minutes) * Review small team recommendation and input provided (RySG, RrSG, GAC) (5 minutes) (see attached) * Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * Updated Timeline (see attached) * See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…) * Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any 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

Recommendation 12
by Alex Deacon Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

All, At the very end of our face to face a very small team (tiny team?) met to discuss updates to Recommendation 12 (reasonable access). The redline attached is where we ended up. Thanks. Alex ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009

3 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Extreme workload warning!
by James M. Bladel Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

I’d like to echo Stephanie’s concerns, below. After two weeks of being AWOL (ePDP Toronto and GNSO Los Angeles), my employer is anxious for me to turn my attention to my real job. I will not be joining the additional sessions next week, nor do I recall our discussing or agreeing to this ask. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:08 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Extreme workload warning! Dear fellow EPDP members and staff: While I understand that we have a deadline to meet, and we do not wish to push any more work than absolutely necessary to the next phase of our WHOIS policy development, I would like to push back on the amount of activity that we are now expected to join over the next couple of weeks in order to push the EPDP final report over the finish line. Many of us have busy lives beyond ICANN, and cannot drop everything to attend 4 three hour plenary meetings a week, let alone the other small team meetings (and respond to the list). Given that we have achieved really only a modest level of consensus on our policy recommendations to date, I would like to register a very strong warning that we will not accept changes to the text that have not been agreed in full committee with full attendance. This appears to be a golden opportunity for those who are being paid to work full time on lobbying for certain outcomes, to insert or reinsert their favorite language into the text. In the name of maintaining the integrity of the multi-stakeholder process, flawed as it undoubtedly is, let us resist this and accept the fact that we cannot fix in our last couple of weeks what we lingered over for months. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin Chair NCSG

2 1

Rec # 4: Data Elements collected - email list discussion
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Hello Everyone: As we turn toward the weekend, please review at your convenience the latest addition to the email list discussion. Following deliberations in this week’s plenary meeting, please find below the proposed updates to recommendation #4 having to do with the data elements collected and also our policy discussions regarding the Tech Contact data. The leadership & support teams hope this accurately reflects the current state of deliberations. Also note that the discussion during the meeting this week also resulted in some updates that have been applied to other Recommendations (e.g., Compliance) for how to refer to the data elements workbooks. We’ve included the wording of our policy conclusions but you will note that we did not include the data table itself as that table is be reconsidered by the Data Elements Team. In its discussions, the EPDP Team sought to eliminate reliance upon the data elements workbooks as authoritative and the wording has been adjusted (as it has in other recommendations) to accommodate that. Recommendation #4 - Initial Report Version The EPDP Team recommends that the data elements defined in the data elements workbooks in Annex D are required to be collected by registrars. In the aggregate, this means that the following data elements are to be collected (or automatically generated): Refer to bottom of document for data elements. Recommendation #4 - Updated version The EPDP Team recommends that the data elements listed below (as illustrated in the data elements analysis in Annex D) are required to be collected by registrars. In the aggregate, this means that the following data elements are to be collected, where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements: [[[Include data elements table, including optional and automatically generated fields]]] For further details, see complete data elements matrix. For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option), Registrars are to advise the Registered Name Holder at the time of registration that the Registered Name Holder is free to (1) designate the same person as the registrant (or its representative) as the technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the technical contact person concerned. Note (not part of the policy recommendation): In its most recent deliberations, the EPDP Team: decided that it would be optional for the registered name holder to provide: technical contact name, email, and phone number did not reach agreement on whether it would be optional or required for the registrar to offer the ability to the Registered Name Holder to provide these data elements, The following groups expressed support for requiring registrars to provide the option for the RNH to provide tech contact data: IPC, BC, ALAC, SSAC, and GAC. The following groups expressed support for leaving it optional for registrars to provide the option for the RNH to provide tech contact data: RrSG, RySG and NCSG). Actions: Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about these modifications. Additional discussion will occur as needed. Deadline: Wednesday, 30 January, additional email discussion might follow depending on responses. Thanks and best regards, Kurt

2 1

Extreme workload warning!
by Stephanie Perrin Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Dear fellow EPDP members and staff: While I understand that we have a deadline to meet, and we do not wish to push any more work than absolutely necessary to the next phase of our WHOIS policy development, I would like to push back on the amount of activity that we are now expected to join over the next couple of weeks in order to push the EPDP final report over the finish line. Many of us have busy lives beyond ICANN, and cannot drop everything to attend 4 three hour plenary meetings a week, let alone the other small team meetings (and respond to the list). Given that we have achieved really only a modest level of consensus on our policy recommendations to date, I would like to register a very strong warning that we will not accept changes to the text that have not been agreed in full committee with full attendance. This appears to be a golden opportunity for those who are being paid to work full time on lobbying for certain outcomes, to insert or reinsert their favorite language into the text. In the name of maintaining the integrity of the multi-stakeholder process, flawed as it undoubtedly is, let us resist this and accept the fact that we cannot fix in our last couple of weeks what we lingered over for months. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin Chair NCSG

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 29 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Julie Bisland Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

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/hZoWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #40
by Marika Konings Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find hereunder the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC. Also take note of the documents that are attached to facilitate deliberations on the different agenda items. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ===================== EPDP Meeting #40 Agenda Tuesday, 29 January 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 1. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Reminder: process for email discussions and upcoming deadlines (see also https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001342.html) * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report and/or revised recommendations * Recommendation 5 – Data elements to be transferred from registrar to registry: the team will review the public comments while small teams will review the data elements (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 12 Reasonable Access (30 minutes) * Review of updated language circulated by Alex Deacon on behalf of small team - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001327.html (5 minutes) * Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 10 minute break * Recommendation #1 – Additional Purposes (20 minutes) * Review input received to date (RrSG, ALAC, NCSG) (5 minutes) (see attached) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 11 – Data retention (20 minutes) * Review small team recommendation and input provided (RySG, RrSG, GAC) (5 minutes) (see attached) * Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * Updated Timeline (see attached) * See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…) * Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any 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

Question for ICANN Org regarding Registrant Contact Information
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

As requested, here is the draft question to the ICANN org regarding the implications of deleting the RDS Administrative fields. Alan =============== The EPDP is contemplating deleting the RDS elements associated with the Administrative and Billing Contact name and contact information (the Billing fields are not currently published and so there will be no impact). If this were to be done, the Registrant contact information would be the only remaining contact fields for the entity responsible for the registration. Under the 2009 RAA, Registrant email and telephone contacts were optional and so may not have been collected. 21013 RAA, under Data Retention Specification 1.1 says: 1.1. Registrar shall collect the following information from registrants at the time of registration of a domain name (a ?Registration?) and shall maintain that information for the duration of Registrar?s sponsorship of the Registration and for a period of two additional years thereafter: 1.1.1. First and last name or full legal name of registrant; 1.1.2. First and last name or, in the event registrant is a legal person, the title of the registrant?s administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.3. Postal address of registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.4. Email address of registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.5. Telephone contact for registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; ..... Since the 2013 RAA was first available in mid-2013, and RAAs must be renewed every five year, as of mid-2018, there should be no registrars operating under the 2009 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org confirm that all registrars are now operating under the 2013 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org provide its interpretation of the requirement under the RAA Data retention Specification 1.1 whether registrars, as part of their adoption of the 2013 RAA, are required to ensure that Registrant contact email and telephone fields are completed, or whether the phrase "shall maintain that information" (which was validly allowed to be blank at registration time) allows them to preserve any empty Registrant contact fields. If the former, is Contractual Compliance taking any action to ensure that registrars fulfill this obligation?

1 0