January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

I certainly cannot speak on behalf of other ACs, and I cannot speak formally on what the ALAC will do later in this process. However having been Chair for 4 years, I can talk about how we have behaved in the past. The ALAC has took a strong position years ago that it was more effective to participate in policy processes (both GNSO and others) rather than just submit advice to the Board at the very end of the process when the Board's options might be limited. We do often respond to public comment periods, including those initiated by the Board, just as many groups within the GNSO do. I cannot recall a time when we gave formal advice to the Board on an issue that had been nominally resolved by a formal policy process. In fact, we relatively rarely submit advice to the Board on any subject. I think that you will find that GNSO groups (including the RrSG) approach the Board far oftener that the ALAC does. All of that being said, we certainly reserve the right to take such action if we feel the situation warrants it. That is actually comparable to a GNSO sub-group voting against the EPDP recommendations in Council if they believe the situation warrants it. We all have multiple kicks at the can. Hopefully we will use THIS present process and resolve our differences reasonably. Alan At 15/01/2019 03:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Good point, Alan. And along the same lines, do the ACs intend to participate in EPDP consensus, AND submit their advice on this matter directly to the Board? Or do you expect that we will see one or the other, but not both? �� James Bladel GoDaddy ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:58 To: Mueller, Milton L; Alex Deacon Cc: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Milton, if your statement is accurate and only GNSO SGs count, then the ALAC, GAC and SSAC are here with token representation and absolutely no say in the outcome. I request that EPDP Chair clarify if that is his interpretation as well, or if the non-GNSO folks here actually count. Alan At 14/01/2019 08:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon < alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP � Domains< rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

I thought we were talking about how consensus will be assessed in the EPDP. Alan At 15/01/2019 04:17 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I didn’t say AC’s didn’t count. There is no mention of AC’s in that message at all. We are talking about how consensus is assessed within the GNSO. From: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:58 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu>; Alex Deacon <alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com> Cc: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Milton, if your statement is accurate and only GNSO SGs count, then the ALAC, GAC and SSAC are here with token representation and absolutely no say in the outcome. I request that EPDP Chair clarify if that is his interpretation as well, or if the non-GNSO folks here actually count. Alan At 14/01/2019 08:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Alex Iâ��m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the ch charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not Câ��s. Th The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSGâ��™s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon < alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each teamâ��s list. The Support Team has prepared new summummaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.â�� I wish to be careful how we manage thatt. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I donâ��t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly formatâ�� I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I canâ��t burden the differferent groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.â�� I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, Iâ��d be happy to discuss this further but have le left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, Iâ��d be happy to have a conversation. UnfUnfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that itâ��s diffifficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesdayâ��s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each gr group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP � Domains< rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

Toronto Meeting Agenda
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

Hi Everyone: Welcome to Toronto (or safe traveling). Attached is a detailed agenda for our meeting. I thought it was important to take into account the work of last week prior to creating it. In order to maintain the momentum from last week, we will spend much of Day 1 closing off the issues that were discussed in the small teams. The results of the small teams must, of course, be discussed and agreed to by the plenary group. We also plan to discuss the open issues forwarded to us by the small teams. Day 2 will cover issues indicated as important by many of you in the recent poll. You’ll not be surprised to know that the Leadership and Support teams think them important also. On Day 3, we will pick up additional issues and continue discussions that required more time. (We will no doubt need some housecleaning from day before.) We will schedule Legal Team meetings with Ruth Boardman in the least obtrusive way. I have tentatively set our first meeting for lunch on Monday. Ruth will introduce herself at our meeting tomorrow. Please note that the discussion of data elements and data flows are not presently in the agenda. We intend to work that in to our discussion at the appropriate time, maybe here in Toronto. To a certain extent the data element discussion is reliant on how we come out on other issues - especially the purposes for processing data. When the timing is appropriate, we might schedule a small team to discuss data elements - perhaps in parallel with a Legal Team meeting. Additional meetings to discuss the data element workbooks will be scheduled for next week for those who are interested. We will start at 8AM with coffee and will sit down at or before 8:30AM. Be forewarned that we have retained the room into the evening on Thursday in the event we work later. We hope to see you tonight at the Cocktail Reception, 6-8pm, at the Frontenac Foyer at the Westin Harbour Castle Hotel. Best regards, Kurt

1 0

Tomorrow
by Thomas Rickert (eco) Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

Hi all, sorry for using the mailing list for this, but I think I have not mentioned that I can only fly out tomorrow a.m. I will land around 12.30 and then join as fast as possible. Best, Thomas ======== rickert.net PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.

1 0

Fwd: [Ext] Legal Service Procurement
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

Hi Everyone: Please see Dan Halloran’s email below regarding the procurement of a legal advisor for our team. I spoke to John Jeffrey and he confirmed that Ruth Boardman will be present in Toronto but I do not yet know the extent of her presence or availability. Dan has offered Ruth the initial report for review, pointing to the questions that are posed there. So Ruth will have some familiarity with the issues coming into the meeting. I will recommend that the EPDP Legal Team meet with Ruth Boardman near the outset of the meeting to review the questions we have and in order to iterate them a bit. We might be able to get some preliminary inputs to inform our discussion at that point. Also, Ruth should spend some considerable time with the plenary toward the middle of the meeting, say half of the session Tuesday so she can observe the discussion and pose / receive questions. Finally, I hope she can meet with the legal team again toward the end to firm up initial answers provided in the first discussion and have a briefing on new issues raised. So, pretty good news. I have a few more points. In thinking about how to work with this I attempted to balance our opportunity to interact with legal counsel against our need to avoid distractions and keep our mind focused on the issues at hand. I prefer no disruptions at this point but the opportunity to work with legal counsel in a face-to-cae manner is important. Also, I am concerned about taking the Legal Team, nine key members, out of the plenary discussion to meet with outside counsel. I propose the answer to this might the creation of a parallel small team to review and consider data elements and data flows in detail. I think this is an equally important issue but one that might not capture the fascination of everyone. It seems like a good division of interests: legal and data. We can run these two meetings coincidentally for a couple hours. In another approach to find time for the Legal Team, The Legal Team might meet with Ruth at breakfast or dinner. We are checking Ruth’s availability for this . I hope you find this useful. See you soon. Kurt > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ext] Legal Service Procurement > Date: January 10, 2019 at 3:08:01 PM PST > To: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com> > Cc: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-legal(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-legal(a)icann.org> > > Thank you Kurt and the rest of the EPDP Legal Team. > > We are pleased to inform you that ICANN org has retained the law firm of Bird & Bird as an additional expert to help advise on GDPR matters, including advising the EPDP Team. Bird & Bird is a leading international law firm with over 1300 lawyers in 29 offices across Europe, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and North America with a highly regarded International Privacy & Data Protection Group that advises clients throughout the world. <https://www.twobirds.com/en/practice-areas/privacy-and-data-protection <https://www.twobirds.com/en/practice-areas/privacy-and-data-protection>> > > The engagement will be led by Ruth Boardman, who jointly heads Bird & Bird’s International Privacy and Data Protection Group and has extensive experience advising public and private sector organizations on data privacy matters, including representing them on their dealings with Data Protection Authorities and the EU’s Article 29 Working Party, now the European Data Protection Board. <https://www.twobirds.com/en/our-lawyers/r/ruth-boardman1 <https://www.twobirds.com/en/our-lawyers/r/ruth-boardman1>> > > ICANN has used the services of Bird & Bird in the past for public advice to the community Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team, which included a written memorandum as well as attending a meeting of the Implementation Review Team to provide direct responses and engagement with the community as they worked to finalize implementation plans for transitioning gTLDs from “thin” WHOIS to “thick” WHOIS. Given the positive experience with working with Bird & Bird on this public advice, Bird & Bird’s understanding of ICANN and its ecosystem, as well as its deep expertise in international privacy and data protection matters, we expect that Ruth and the Bird & Bird team can help provide additional expertise that will advance the efforts of ICANN org and the GNSO Expedited PDP Team. > > Thank you for your attention. I look forward to seeing you all in Toronto next week. > > Best regards, > Dan > > >> On Jan 6, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Dan: >> >> To keep the ball rolling on the procurement of legal services, I am attaching a document to aid in the effort. The doc is a compilation of the SOW written by Stephanie and Diane, as well as note on Conflict (by Margie) and on possible efficiencies by Thomas. >> >> Please let me know the extent to which this is successful and what else is required. >> >> To the Legal Team, I apologize that this document does not encompass all the thought that has gone into this effort or did not consult with you on this document but I wanted to get something to ICANN to expedite the procurement. We can continue to augment this material as the procurement continues. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Kurt >> >> <EPDP Legal SOW.docx> >

2 1

Requested Agenda Items for Upcoming EPDP F2F
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

All, I'm writing to request that 3 specific items be included in the agenda for our upcoming F2F next week: 1. Discuss and develop recommendation for addressing the period of time between the Temporary Specification's May 25 expiration and implementation of the remaining EPDP WG policy recommendations approved by the Board; 2. When and how the EPDP WG will conduct/hold its consensus calls; and 3. Quick review and disposition of all the items left in the "parking lot" thus far. Many thanks! K Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354

5 6

Additional information about the concept of independent controllership
by Trang Nguyen Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As noted on previous calls, we’ve prepared a working draft document for review and consideration by the EPDP Team to provide additional information about the concept of independent controllership. We hope that this document will help further our discussions in Toronto and the coming weeks about the roles and responsibilities of the parties as joint controllers/independent controllers/processors/etc. We hope you find this to be helpful and look forward to our discussions this week. Best, Dan and Trang ICANN Org Liaisons

1 0

face to face meeting details
by Anderson, Marc Jan. 14, 2019

Jan. 14, 2019

Kurt and leadership team, As we prepare for the face to face meeting in Toronto next week I have a couple suggestions/requests. Managing the queue: can we please use Adobe to manage the queue? In LA and especially in Barcelona Adobe wasn't used which led to issues that we just don't have when using Adobe. We are all used to using Adobe, lets stick with that for the face to face. Adobe Chat: along similar lines, in Barcelona, Adobe chat was either discouraged or not available. As a result we had much longer queues. It also led to many cases of jumping the queue to "correct the record". I know chairing or otherwise facilitating a meeting and keeping up with chat is essentially impossible, but the meeting chat is a valuable tool and helps move discussions along. We are all used to using Adobe chat and I thought not having it in Barcelona hampered progress. Also I think everyone understands when the chair has to pause to catch up on chat. Breaks and meeting pauses: On yesterday's Team B call initially when we got to the discussion on Purpose 5 (compliance) no one had any comments. Kudos to Brian who suggested we pause for 5 minutes so people could review. It wasn't an issue of Team B members not being prepared, we just have a lot of topics and issues on our plates and needed a moment. We ended up having an excellent discussion following the 5 minute pause and generally agreed to revised language for the recommendation. When considering the agenda for the face to face, please make sure you are accounting for time for people to take breaks, sync up with team members and refresh their memories on discussion topics. Thanks, Marc Marc Anderson mcanderson(a)verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> Cell: 571.521.9943 Office: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://www.verisign.com/>

8 11

GNSO Chair Message to EPDP WG
by Rafik Dammak Jan. 14, 2019

Jan. 14, 2019

Hi all, please find below GNSO Chair message the EPDP team. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Drazek, Keith Date: lun. 14 janv. 2019 à 21:04 Subject: GNSO Chair Message to EPDP WG To: Hi Kurt, Rafik and Marika, Please forward this email to the EPDP WG list. Regards, Keith ————————————— Dear EPDP WG members, As you approach your in-person meeting in Toronto next week, I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the substantial work and sacrifice you all have made over the last several months, and to encourage your continued constructive engagement in working towards a consensus policy recommendation. As the manager of the GNSO policy development process and this Expedited PDP, the GNSO Council is keenly aware of the intensity and complexity of your work and the unique and challenging circumstances imposed by the Temporary Specification’s May 2019 expiration. Your ongoing work is unprecedented in ICANN and GNSO policy-making history, and your dedication and continued contributions are both apparent and very much appreciated. In acknowledging the deadline imposed by the Temp Spec and the necessary timelines in your EPDP project plan, I recognize the importance of your upcoming face-to-face meeting. In observing the work of the EPDP, I’ve noted how productive the in-person engagements have been, and I am confident your Toronto meeting will be no different. As you all know, this session comes at a critical time for your work and the timely delivery of a consensus policy recommendation to the GNSO Council and ultimately to the ICANN Board for approval. In the spirit of our multi-stakeholder, bottom-up, consensus-based policy-making process, I encourage each of you to take this opportunity to continue working together collaboratively and collegially in reaching a timely consensus recommendation. I am confident your work product will be an example of the ICANN community’s ability and capacity to deliver under challenging circumstances, and proof of the value of our multi-stakeholder model. Thank you all very much for your work and dedication to this critical process. With sincere regards, Keith Drazek GNSO Chair

1 0

Prioritization of F2F Topics Survey
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 12, 2019

Jan. 12, 2019

Dear All, In order to help inform the EPDP Team Leadership's development of the agenda for the F2F meeting in Toronto, each group may voluntarily rank the different purposes and recommendations below that are currently slated for EPDP Team review. Please find the link to the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GN7YN8X In prioritizing these topics, please consider the topics that both (1) MUST be addressed and resolved prior to the Team’s provision of its Final Report on the Temporary Specification, AND (2) should be discussed in a F2F manner, if possible. Topics not falling into the above may, for example, be handled outside of the F2F meeting in Team teleconferences or handled in Phase 2 of the Team’s work. This poll is intended to be informative and should not be construed as a vote on what will and what will not be on the agenda for the F2F meeting as that is a determination the leadership team will ultimately make. (Note: topics previously covered by the small teams have not been included in this survey, but you can call these out in the comment box if you believe any of the topics do require EPDP Team consideration during the F2F meeting.) If you choose to respond to the survey, please do so by COB Monday, 14 January. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

2 1