January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

EPDP Kobe
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 27, 2019

Jan. 27, 2019

Dear Kurt In reply to my earlier message regarding Travel Support for Kobe meeting of EPDP ,I received the following from secretariat Quote *From Marika Koenig * *Dear All,* *For your information, the following meetings have been requested for the EPDP Team for ICANN64:* - *Saturday, 09 March - 08:30-18:30 * - *Sunday, 10 March - 17:00-18:30* - *Wed, 13 March - 10:30 -12:00* - *Thursday, 14 March - 08:30-10:15* *It will be decided closer to the date whether all these sessions are needed, but at a minimum, the EPDP Team is expected to meet all day on Saturday 9 March. * *Note that no travel support is available for this meeting, but remote participation will be available. Similarly, alternates can be requested to step in for members not attending ICANN64.* *Best regards,* *Caitlin, Berry and Marika* Unquote This announcement is disappointing and frustrating as based on the past experience all these TEAM MEETINGS were provided with travel support. I do not understand nor convinced that why for almost the last f2f meeting there would be no travel support In view of the circumstances some of us encountering, may I request you to seriously consider the matter and provide travel support at least for those who are in special circumstances or those that they asked for that I am awaiting your kind attention and favourable reply as soon as possible allowing us to make the travel arrangement in a smooth manner Regards Kavouss

3 4

BC/IPC Comments on Recommendation 1
by Margie Milam Jan. 26, 2019

Jan. 26, 2019

Dear All, As requested, here comments on the draft final report from the BC and IPC on Recommendation 1: Purpose 1: In lieu of the “Benefits and Responsibilities” language, we propose a slight modification by adding the word “maintenance” as follows: To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name …” Purpose 2: The report should include the agreement from Toronto similar to what is in Footnote 25 that: “Purpose 2 is a placeholder pending further work on the issue of access in Phase 2 of this EPDP, and will be revisited once this Phase 2 work has been completed.” Line 684: The yellow text should be replaced with actual recommendation, as follows: “The EPDP commits to considering in Phase 2 of this EPDP whether separate purposes should be included for ICANN ORG research and threat response in furtherance of ICANN’s mission, and for the ICANN Accuracy Reporting System (ARS) to continue to be published.” Finally, Footnote 25 is a statement that should not be buried in a footnote, but included in the body of the report. All the best, Margie

1 0

Process for email discussion lists
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Hi Everyone: Thanks for your comments to the mail discussion lists thus far. (You will be glad to know there are a couple more to come!) I know it is somewhat daunting to have these different discussion chains distributed, keeping track of them all and trying to coordinate a position among your groups. Please be assured that: (1) this approach I think is necessary to meet our target dates, but (2) if there is a need to have a verbal discussion on any issue (small group or plenary), we will pause to do that. Now that some comments have been shared, here are some reactions, a slight mid-course correction, and the process for closure. 1) First, it is GREAT that the team seems engaged on the review of the proposed recommendations. 2) Edits should be suggested on behalf of groups, not individuals - to give us a chance at gauging support and also to give us a chance at making our time frames. (We are making this assumption on comments made to date.) 3) As always, please resist wordsmithing. Some of these recommendations were thoroughly negotiated previously. (But we understand short edits can be meaningful and that one word can make a significant difference.) 4) Briefly explain your rationale. While a reason for making a certain amendment might seem to be self-evident to one person, it might be a mystery to another. Others can more easily get behind a recommendation if it is explained. With regards to closing these off, note that each individual “comment forum” has a due date. At the close of each deadline, the support team will state that we have reached the deadline and we will come back to you with questions or a new version (or both) the next business day. Perhaps for each of these, this announcement could be sort of a final warning and that you will have 12 more hours (or say 8 daylight hours in your time zone) to finish an additional comment while we go about the task of compiling them. I hope this is helpful to you. Thank you agiain, good luck and have the best weekend you can. Best regards, Kurt

1 0

RrSG proposed Recommendation #11
by Sarah Wyld Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Hello All, For Recommendation 11, the RrSG has the following proposed new text and comments: *New text:* 1) The EPDP team recommends that ICANN, as soon as is practicable, undertakes a review of all its active processes and procedures so as to identify and document the instances in which personal data are requested from a registrar beyond the period of the 'life of the registration'. Retention periods for specific data elements should then be identified and documented, and relied upon to establish the required relevant and specific minimum data retention expectations for registrars. 2) In the interim, the EPDP team has recognized that the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (“TDRP”) has been identified as one such process. The EPDP team therefore recommends that ICANN should direct registrars to retain only those data elements deemed necessary for the purposes of the TDRP, for a period of one year following the life of the registration. This retention is grounded on the stated policy stipulation within the TDRP that claims under the policy may only be raised for a period of 12 months after the alleged breach (FN: see TDRP section 2.2) of the Transfer Policy (FN: see Section 1.15 of TDRP). Such retained data may only be used in relation to a specific TDRP complaint; should a Registrar use the retained data for any other purpose, they would do so under their own Controllership. 3) The EPDP team recognizes that Contracted Parties may have needs or requirements for different retention periods in line with local law or other requirements. The EPDP team recommends that nothing in this recommendation, or in separate ICANN-mandated policy, should prohibit contracted parties from setting their own retention periods beyond that which is expected in ICANN policy. Similarly, should local law prevent retention for the minimum period as set by ICANN, the ePDP team recommends that a suitable waiver procedure is put in place that can address such situations. In addition, the waiver procedure should be reviewed to determine if it would be appropriate for other CPs to “join” themselves to an existing waiver upon demonstration of being subject to the same law or other requirement that grounded the original waiver application. *Notes:* - incorporates suggested new text & comments from email list discussion (thanks Alan W for your insights!) - spells out that the data can only be used for specified retention purposes (or, if used for other purpose, that would be a separate Controller decision) -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

2 1

Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA
by Marika Konings Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Hereby the response from ICANN Compliance in relation to a question that was raised during this week’s meeting: 1. What happens to registrations that were made under the 2009 RAA? Is the registrar now required to collect additional contact information that is required under the 2013 RAA? Registrars are not required to collect additional contact information for 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) registrations. However, registrars may be required to update existing contact information for 2009 RAA registrations when there is a triggering event under the 2013 RAA that may require them to do so (e.g., the domain name is an inbound transfer, the registrant changes, there is information to suggest the current contact information is incorrect). This response will get posted 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

Notes, action items and outcomes of today's EPDP Team meeting
by Marika Konings Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes, action items and outcomes of today’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ================= EPDP Team Meeting #38 Tuesday, 22 January 2019 Notes and Action Items EPDP Team Outcomes: * Recommendation #3 agreement to leave as is in the Initial Report. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. * Recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider. High-level Notes/Actions: Action item #1: Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations. Action item #2: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel. Action item #3: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle. Action item #4: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups. Action item #5: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed. Action item #6: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible. Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: None Notes & Action items 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/ZwPVBQ. Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates * Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect * 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 (5 minutes) a. Recap from F2F meeting and next steps b. Review of outstanding action items c. Other updates, if applicable * Thank you for all your efforts and work in Toronto * Make sure to have PCRTs and comment summaries available (see https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) * Please make sure to review emails that have and will be circulated - important to flag by the deadline when items need to be discussed further. * Request to reconsider travel support for Kobe. Will likely be in phase 2. Would require additional budget allocation. General methodology for how GNSO meetings are run is expected to be applied - remote participation will be available. * ARS - is it possible to modify compliance purpose to cover also ARS. Could it be part of accuracy discussion? Need to separate accuracy from data quality (ARS). 3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report a. Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * See SSAC comments. Linked to phase 2. Not intended to change the existing recommendation. * Would it be worth asking Ruth to clarify what accuracy requirements entail under GDPR? Legal committee to consider question on this topic. The group has different interpretations as to what 'accuracy' means under GDPR. Legal advice is not expected to change this recommendation but may help inform future work. Make sure that any question is specific as possible, e.g. Does controller have any responsibilities in relation to accuracy and if so, what would those be? * Consider moving this work to phase 2? * This appears to be a policy issue, not GDPR compliance. Could be dealt with later. * Should EPDP Team evaluate whether existing accuracy procedures comply with GDPR? * The party collecting data must make sure that the data is accurately put into their system. So this is a requirement for the registrars in particularly to ensure that the data - as provided by the data subject - is processed accurately. * Need to ensure that compliance has the ability to do their job - aligns with how recommendation is worded at the moment. * EPDP Team agreement to leave recommendation #3 as is. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. Action item #1: WHOIS accuracy - Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations. b. Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes) i. Review of ICANN Org response to question on this topic (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html) (5 minutes) ii. Deliberate (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Initial Report recommended to keep Temp Spec requirements for City which means redaction, with IPC/BC noting that it should be unredacted. * Discussed during F2F meeting with several expressing support for not redacting. ICANN Org information shared re. rationale for redaction. * Response from Org speaks to City and postal code, not specifically city. Combination of city and postal code is what could be problematic, not necessarily just city. * In smaller places, identifying city could be an issue. * See also discussion held by RDS PDP WG on this topic. * Redaction of city is compliant per the Temporary Specification, so why change it now. * Useful field for the reasons of jurisdiction. * Need to assess support across different groups and determine whether consensus exists. * Everyone encouraged to review the information that has been provided on this subject to be able to opine. Consider asking for legal guidance. * Show of hands of those who cannot live with sticking with the temporary specification requirement of redacting city field: IPC, GAC, BC. Document in the Final Report those that cannot live with it. Action item #2: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel. 10 minute break c. Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Comments do not seem to focus on specific changes * Some of this may get determined / dictated by the agreements that are put in place. Should a small team review the table and determine whether any updates need to be made? * What concerns have been raised that need to be addressed in the recommendation? * These are issues where there is disagreement, but it is not a matter of what the parties say but it is a matter law. * Caveat the analysis in some way. Further work is being done. This could help inform those deliberations but it cannot be determinative. Best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process in the form of the necessary agreements which would define the roles and responsibilities. CPH will need to have appropriate agreements with ICANN with regard to data processing. * Will need to review the processing flows after purposes are finalized and data element workbooks have been finished. For example, UDRP is one area where data processing flows are not clear. Note that a small team will meet later today to work on the data elements workbooks. Focus is on post-filing data flows. * Will need to be further detailed in the context of the discussions on the appropriate agreements between CP and ICANN Org. * Path for settling is greater than the time this group has available. * This is dependent on appropriate agreements being in place, as these would inform these recommendations. See also recommendation #13. Obligation for ICANN Org to come to the table. * EPDP Team outcome on recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider. Action item #3: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle. d. General Comments (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. 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 in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Some issues flagged have already been taken up or have been addressed. * Need to further consider Thick WHOIS recommendation as well as P/P recommendation. * Thick WHOIS - may be mixing topics. Group has discussed transfer of data from registrar to registry, but that may not be the same as a registry displaying THICK WHOIS output. EPDP Team should consider disclosure at registry level. What needs to happen in phase 1 and what needs to happen in phase 2, and what is best left to another group? Different options to consider on the table. Consider this topic further in the context of recommendation #5, noting that disclosure is a separate topic from transfer. Or should this be taken up in phase 2? * P/P - additional recommendation as to how to handle P/P registrations: "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". What was in the Temporary Specification - need to confirm. Current language is: 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. Need to consider this further and implications on GDPR. * Consider deferring these issues to another group to further review. * Consider doing further triage – does it require changes to our Initial Report recommendations, does it require phase two work, or is there another group who is / should deal with this. * Leadership team to review and make a proposal * Look at suggestion of reconsidering definition of gTLD registration data – bring this to the list. Action item #4: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups. Action item #5: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed. 4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…) b. Initial thoughts and suggestions c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) Action item #6: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible. 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. 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…>.

3 3

Organization Field - Updated - Recommendation #9
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Hi Everyone: In the ongoing and seemingly never-ending attempt to close discussion on Recommendations for the Final Report via email discussion, below please find amended wording for Recommendation 9, having to do with the publication / redaction of the Organization field. After posting of the initial version, I read the email list comment and was drawn to James’ rather clean outline, as opposed to my less clear earlier proposal. Therefore, I took the liberty of reorganizing the proposed Recommendation somewhat, taking into account not only James structure but also the email comments before and after that (as well as the meeting notes). The result is below. I also placed the procedure itself as part of our “implementation advice” as there will be operational details to figure out. The implementation effort can ensure that those “details” are consonant with the policy goals. Proposed Recommendation #9 The EPDP Team recommends that: - The Organization field will be published if that publication is acknowledged or confirmed by the registrant via a process that can be determined by each registrar. If the registered name holder does not confirm the publication, the Organization field can be redacted or the field contents deleted at the option of the registrar. - The implementation will have a phase-in period to allow registrars the time to deal with existing registrations and develop procedures. - In the meantime, registrars will be permitted to redact the Organization Field. Implementation advice: the implementation review team should consider the following implementation model discussed by the EPDP Team: For existing registrations, the first step will be to confirm the correctness / accuracy of the existing Organization field data. For the period between the adoption of EPDP policy recommendations and some future “date certain” to be determined by the implementation review: 1) Registrars will redact the Organization field 2) Registrars will contact the registered name holders that have entered data in the Organization field and request review and confirmation that the data is correct. a. If the registered name holder confirms or corrects the data the data will remain in the Organization field. b. If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents. If necessary, the registration will be re-assigned to the Registered Name Holder. 3) If Registrar chooses to publish the Registrant Organization field, it will notify these registered name holders that of the “date certain,” the Organization field will be treated as non-personal data and be published, for those Registered Names Holders who have confirmed the data and agreed to publication. For new registrations, beginning with the “date certain”: 1) New registrations will present some disclosure, disclaimer or confirmation when data is entered in the Organization field. Registrars are free to develop their own process (e.g., opt-in, pop-up advisory or question, locked/grayed out field). 2) If the registered name holder confirms the data and agrees to publication: a. the data in the Organization field will be published, b. The Organization will be listed as the Registered Name Holder. c. The name of the registered name holder (a natural person) will be listed as the point of contact at the Registrant Organization. Actions: 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. Deadline for comment: Tuesday 29 Jan. Thank you and best regards, Kurt

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Overview of status and deadlines for review
by Marika Konings Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Note that the staff support team has created a wiki page where you can find all the information in relation to the draft Final Report as well as the latest version of the status of review doc and related deadlines, see https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg. We hope this is helpful. 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: Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 23:20 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Overview of status and deadlines for review Dear EPDP Team, As requested, hereby the overview of the different purposes / recommendations for which language has been circulated and the deadline for input: Recommendation / Purpose # Due Date Recommendation #1 Friday, 25 January Recommendation #4 Tuesday 29 January (to be circulated) Recommendation #7 Wednesday, 30 January Recommendation #9 Thursday, 24 January (updated version to be shared shortly addressing input received) Recommendation #10 Monday, 28 January Recommendation #11 Friday, 25 January Recommendation #13 Monday 28 January Recommendation #14 Monday, 28 January Geographic Differentiation Tuesday, 29 January (to be circulated) ICANN Org Questions & Assessment Wednesday, 30 January Attached you will find further details (including the proposed language) on these and other recommendations. 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

Overview of status and deadlines for review
by Marika Konings Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As requested, hereby the overview of the different purposes / recommendations for which language has been circulated and the deadline for input: Recommendation / Purpose # Due Date Recommendation #1 Friday, 25 January Recommendation #4 Tuesday 29 January (to be circulated) Recommendation #7 Wednesday, 30 January Recommendation #9 Thursday, 24 January (updated version to be shared shortly addressing input received) Recommendation #10 Monday, 28 January Recommendation #11 Friday, 25 January Recommendation #13 Monday 28 January Recommendation #14 Monday, 28 January Geographic Differentiation Tuesday, 29 January (to be circulated) ICANN Org Questions & Assessment Wednesday, 30 January Attached you will find further details (including the proposed language) on these and other recommendations. 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…>.

2 1

ICANN Org Questions - draft assessment and topics for further discussion
by Marika Konings Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Dear All, The staff support team went through the ICANN Org questions that were submitted in December in relation to the Temporary Specification provisions and the impact of the EPDP Team’s recommendations on those, especially in those case where the team’s recommendations are currently silent. Having gone through the table, it is our assessment that most of the questions have, or are being addressed, or are expected to be addressed in the context of implementation. However, there are a couple of topics where EPDP Team guidance may be necessary so that appropriate provisions can be made in the Initial Report and/or during implementation. Attached you will find the draft assessment (last column on each tab). Of course, if you disagree with the assessment and/or identify additional topics that require EPDP Team consideration, please flag those by Wednesday 30 January. The topics that may require further guidance are: * RDAP and SLAs – what recommendations and/or guidance needs to be included in the Final Report, or is this to be addressed during implementation? * Bulk data registration access to ICANN – should the requirements in the Temp Spec be confirmed by the EPDP Team in the Final Report? * Process for amendments to Registry – Registrar agreements – should the process in the Temp Spec be confirmed as a policy recommendation, or is this to be addressed during implementation? * Does the ‘consent’ provision in the Temporary Specification require confirmation in the Final Report or is this to be addressed during implementation as consent is already defined in the GDPR? * RDDS Search Capabilities - should the requirements in the Temp Spec be confirmed by the EPDP Team in the Final Report or is this to be further considered in phase 2? You are encouraged to share your perspectives on these topics on the mailing list prior to next Thursday’s meeting where we hope to run through these items, and any other topics that may have been flagged, to close on these items. The leadership team may also identify further items for discussion. 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