January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Discussion summary tables for small team meeting A and B
by Marika Konings Jan. 8, 2019

Jan. 8, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the discussion summary tables that will be displayed during today’ small team A and B meetings. 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

Public Comments - Find and Replace of "support" for "agreement"
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 8, 2019

Jan. 8, 2019

Hi, Kicking off my re-entry after 2 weeks' break by reading the public comments. It appears that the find and replace error that Alan flagged in the RySG comments on Purpose 1 ("agreement" replaced with "support") wasn't limited to just RySG comments. It appears in the MPAA comment on Purpose 1, too, and possibly the Microsoft comment, too (defer to Mark S. for definitive answer). K Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 8, 2019

Jan. 8, 2019

Kristina, one aspect of your message confuses me. You make reference to meeting on Tuesdays and Thursdays with work does in between. By my reckoning, we have ONE Tuesday (which started 23 minutes ago in my time zone) and ONE Thursday before our F@F meeting in Toronto. Alan At 07/01/2019 03:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B call on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. 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 Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/rds-leadership/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zIsWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A call on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. 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 Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-sc-budget/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

CANCELLED / Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

** This meeting has been cancelled due to Small Team A and B replacing it with different join information (updated join information to be sent out shortly). Please remember to remove this from your calendars. 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/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

EPDP small team meetings
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Based on the feedback received on the mailing list, the leadership team has decided to move forward with two small teams this week who will be tasked with considering the less controversial comment categories and make recommendations for edits (if any) to the existing, agreed-upon recommendations. Each group is expected to appoint one main representative to each small team. Other members are also welcome to join, but only the main representative is expected to do the bulk of the talking to ensure that every group has an opportunity to have their views heard. Alternates are only expected to join if they are replacing a member who is not able to attend. Representatives (and other members joining) are expected to have reviewed the PCRTs for the topics listed for their respective small team below, with the following question in mind: “What comments/arguments provide new information / rationale, if any, that merit group discussion and possible changes / refinements? For each small team, at a minimum, 5 topics listed below are expected to be covered, so please make sure you have reviewed all assigned topics. At the start of the meeting, the chair will ask the representatives to identify for which purposes and/or recommendations comments / arguments have been identified that merit group discussion so that the small team can deep dive into those and consider possible recommendations for EPDP Team consideration. Small team A and B will cover: Small Team ASmall Team B Purpose 1 - Establish the rights of a Registered Name Holder Purpose 3 - Enable communication with RNH Recommendation #15 - URS / UDRPRecommendation #16 - Instructions for RPM PDP WG Recommendation #18 - Data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers (incl. Question #4)Recommendation #19 - Transfer Policy Recommendation #22 - Impact on other policies Purpose 5 - Handling Contractual Compliance Recommendation #6 - Escrow ProvidersRecommendation #10 - Email communication Recommendation #12 - Reasonable accessRecommendation #13 - Controller Agreement Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data Purpose 7 - gTLD registration policy eligibility criteria Recommendation #17 - Input from RPM PDP WG to inform subsequent access discussionRecommendation #20 - Input to Transfer Policy review (incl. Question #5) Purpose 6 - Resolution of DRPsRecommendation #11 - Data retention Recommendation #14 - Responsible parties As noted previously: Small team member reps are expected to keep their respective groups informed about the deliberations. To do so, some topics discussed during the Tuesday meeting might wrap up during the Thursday meeting so that an interim consultation might take place. The plenary is expected to grant great deference to the findings of the small teams. If a member of the plenary has an interest in a certain topic and is not included on that small team, that member is expected to contact her/his group’s small team member prior to the Tuesday meeting to provide input. [Rationale: if we re-litigate each small group conclusion, this approach will decrease our efficiency rather than the opposite.] In reviewing the input received, EPDP Team members are expected to look at the comments in their totality and not advocate for a comment that has been submitted by his / her respective group (an EPDP Team member may explain a certain position, if asked by another team member). [Rationale: the same deference must be paid to comments made by those without representative team members.] During the small team calls, the Chair and Vice-Chair will endeavor to represent the comments not belonging to an SO/AC or SG/C. Because these comments do not have a specific advocate within the EPDP Team, the small team members should take care to pay close attention to the comments and accompanying rationales. Please note that separate call notifications will be sent shortly to provide the details for both small team meetings which will run in parallel. Make sure to co-ordinate with your respective groups which small team to join. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team] **Reminder** Meeting Invitation: GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Are the plans to meet in three parallel small groups cancelled? Alan At 07/01/2019 08:43 AM, Julie Bisland wrote: Dear all, The thirty-eighth meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Team is scheduled on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. 06:00 PST, 09:00 EST, 15:00 Paris CET, 19:00 Karachi PKT, 23:00 Tokyo JST, (Friday) 01:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yc2bdvj3 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_yc2bdvj3&d…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Please ensure you read the below information:

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

ALAC will be able to cover both days. Alan At 05/01/2019 09:18 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Kurt, Just a head's up that for the ALAC, it may not be possible to have an Alternate available for both sessions. We're still working on it, but I thought it right to alert you to the possibility. It might be possible to group together topics that are not of great concern to the ALAC for one of the six meetings. I'll look at that tomorrow. I note that your plan puts particular pressure on the BC, IPC and ISPC who were only allocated a single Alternate over their two Members. On Ayden's "Stakeholder Group" concern, I presumed that this was really a lower-case stakeholder (as in multistakeholder model), capitalized just because it was a title. Alan At 05/01/2019 07:51 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Ayden: That is the rub isn’t it? I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again. I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently, so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase our capacity even more. One assumption I made was that I don’t think we can create small teams without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates, that would restrict us to two groups. I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council. I don’t know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be received in time for meetings in three days' time. I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group. It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach. Let me know your position on it. Thanks and best regards, Kurt > On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>> wrote: > > Hi Kurt, > > Thank you for putting forward this proposal. > > I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal, the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members and the CSG nine members in the process which follows. > > As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date. > > I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Original Message > On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>> wrote: > >> Hi Everyone: >> >> The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. >> >> This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. >> >> Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Kurt >> >> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team > >

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Julie Bisland Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 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/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0