January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Tuesday, 22 January 2019
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 23, 2019

Jan. 23, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8pUWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-temp-spec-gtld-reg-data-22jan19-en.m… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5z5xa9q4nf/ ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

For your review - Proposed language for agreements reached in principle
by Marika Konings Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, In Toronto, we reached agreement in principle on several issues but did not have time to develop language to which the team agreed. To move that discussion forward, the support team has developed the proposed language below for discussion and inclusion in the Final Report. Please review this language with your group to ensure it aligns with the agreement that was reached. If you are of the view that it does not conform to the agreement, please: 1. Respond to this message and change the subject line to the topic of the recommendation about which you have concerns; 2. Outline your concerns, focusing on how the proposed language does not reflect the principle agreement reached, and; 3. Propose edits that would address your concerns that are in line with the agreement reached. The deadline for doing so is Thursday 25 January so that there is sufficient time to review and discuss any concerns. If no concerns are raised, this language will be incorporated into the draft Final Report for your review. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ========= Based on the discussions during the F2F meeting in Toronto, the following updated language is provided for EPDP Team review on the following topics / recommendations: 1. Natural vs. legal Draft recommendation 1) The EPDP Team recommends that the policy recommendations in this Final Report apply to all gTLD registrations, without requiring Registrars to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, although registrars are permitted to make this distinction. 2) The EPDP Team recommends that as soon as possible ICANN Org undertakes a study, for which the terms of reference are developed in consultation with the community, that considers: * The feasibility and costs of distinguishing between legal and natural persons; * Taking into account examples of industries or other organizations where this has been successfully done; * Consider privacy risks to registrants, and; * Consider the risks of not differentiating. 3) Depending on the timing of the research, whether to inform the scope or make use of its findings, the EPDP team will discuss the Legal vs Natural issue in Phase 2. 1. Consent to publish additional contact information Agreement in principle: In its discussion on consent, the Temporary Specification omitted RNH email as a piece of information to which the registrant could consent to publication. This draft recommendation corrects that omission. Draft recommendation The EPDP Team recommends that, as soon as commercially reasonable, Registrar must provide the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder to provide its Consent to publish additional contact information. 1. Organization Field Agreement in principle: Rather than requiring the publication or redaction of the Organization Field, a phased approach was suggested by Team Members that gained general agreement. Updated Recommendation #9 1. The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars MAY begin redacting the Registrant Org field immediately. 2. For existing registrants: the EPDP Team recommends that Registrars MUST notify all existing Registered Name Holders that the Registrant Org field will be treated as non-personal data for new registrants beginning on [x date - to be agreed upon during the implementation of this Policy], and accordingly, the field will be published for new registrants in the freely-accessible directory beginning on [x date]. However, if existing Registered Name Holders wish to have its Organization field published within the freely-accessible database, it must affirmatively consent to the publication by opting in. If the Registered Name Holder affirmatively opts in to the publication of its existing (or modified) Registrant Organization, the Registrar may publish the Registrant Organization Field immediately and/or on the agreed-upon [x] date. 3. The EPDP Team recommends if the existing Registered Name Holder does not affirmatively opt in to the publication of its Registrant Organization field, the Registrar will show the existing Registrant Organization Field but the field MAY be left blank. 4. Upon (1) the registration of a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar or (2) the transfer of the sponsorship of a Registered Name to Registrar, the Registrar MUST inform the Registered Name Holder that the Registrant Org field will be published unless the Registered Name Holder affirmatively opts in to redaction of the Registrant Org field. 1. Deferring consideration of new proposed purposes to phase 2 Agreement in principle: With regards to proposed Purpose O, the Purpose supporting ARS, and the additional purposes received through public comment, the EPDP Team understands some legal clarification is required as to whether those purposes can fall under existing Purposes. Additional complexities were introduced. Therefore, the Team decided to put off this discussion for Phase 2 where the EPDP Charter makes it clear that additional Purposes are, in fact, anticipated. Draft recommendation The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) as well as the continuation of the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org. 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…>.

6 9

EPDP Recommendation 7 - email list discussion
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Hi Everyone: There were several items (Recommendations) that we agreed to discuss via email with the idea that we could close on them without taking time for discussion in a meeting. This email concerns Recommendation 7, addressing data disclosures to ICANN Contractual Compliance. The current recommendation states (1) The EPDP Team recommends that updates are made to the contractual requirements for registries and registrars to transfer to ICANN Compliance the domain name registration data that they process when required/requested, consistent with the data elements workbook that analyzes the purpose to handle contractual compliance monitoring requests, audits, and complaints submitted by Registry Operators, Registrars, Registered Name Holders, and other Internet users (see Annex D, Workbook 5). (2) The data elements workbook that analyzes the purpose to handle contractual compliance monitoring requests, audits, and complaints submitted by Registry Operators, Registrars, Registered Name Holders, and other Internet users contains the specifically-identified data elements the EPDP Team recommends be transferred from registries and registrars to ICANN Compliance (see Annex D, Workbook 5). Small Team Discussion (1) The small team indicated that the Workbooks should not be incorporated by reference into the Recommendation as the Workbooks provided justification or background for the Recommendation but were not Policy statements themselves. (2) The small team expressed the concern that the Recommendation, as written, did not comply with the principle of minimization in that the Recommendation as they could be interpreted to mean that the complete data set could be requested for each ICANN Compliance inquiry, whether necessary for that particular inquiry, or not. Proposed updated language recommendation 7 – ICANN Compliance (1) The EPDP Team recommends that updates are made to the contractual requirements concerning the registration data elements for registries and registrars to transfer to ICANN Compliance the domain name registration data that they process when required/requested, consistent with the data elements listed below. [Bolded language added.] (2) The analysis in Annex D describes the data elements and data flow for the purpose for processing data in accordance with ICANN Contractual Compliance monitoring requests, audits, and complaints submitted by Registry Operators, Registrars, Registered Name Holders, and other Internet users. Based on that analysis and EPDP discussion, the EPDP Team recommends that the following data elements be transferred from registries and registrars to ICANN Compliance.* *To clarify, the data elements listed here are the aggregate of data elements that ICANN Compliance may request. For each request, the data elements requested must be narrowly tailored to meet the needs of the request. (E.g., as noted in the Summary of ICANN Organization’s Contractual Compliance Team Data Processing Activities <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/90774122/Summary-Contractu…>, in validating a complaint, “the Contractual Compliance Team will only request the redacted/masked data elements that are needed to validate the issue(s) outlined in the complaint.”) Action: Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about these modifications and/or what other aspects of this recommendation should be discussed. If there are additional questions for ICANN Compliance that would serve toinform the deliberations on this recommendation, please share these also. Deadline: Friday, 25 January, additional email discussion might follow depending on responses. Thx & best regards, Kurt

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Terri Agnew Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 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 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JUWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

2 1

FW: Small Team - Data Elements Workbooks
by mail＠berrycobb.com Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Hi Plenary EPDP Team, As you will recall from the end of our day 3 session in Toronto, interested persons volunteered to work on the small team to test the logic of the processing activities and data elements across the seven workbooks. Their first meeting is 22 Jan 2019 at 17:30 UTC. The following have volunteered thus far: * Alex Deacon * Sarah Wyld * Alan Woods * Marc Anderson * Stephanie Perrin Below you will find an introductory email of the small team’s scope and primary activities. As this was formed on the fly, not all were present to volunteer or they were not interested in the level of detail this group will get into. Thus, the small team will welcome one or two more, especially from groups not yet represented. Given the urgency, alternates are welcome if the primary is unable to participate or interest in this topic resides elsewhere among your representatives. Please let me know if someone from your group is interested to join and we will add you/them to the small team. The 22 Jan session is not planned to be its only scheduled meeting. Thank you. B GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobbb From: mail(a)berrycobb.com <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 16:13 To: Cc: Subject: Small Team - Data Elements Workbooks Importance: High Hi All, By now, you should have received a Small Team – Data Elements Workbooks calendar invite for tomorrow, 22 Jan 2019 at 17:30 UTC for 2 hours. Upon your review of the workbooks (attached), you’ll likely see that we’ll probably need at least two more meetings to work these into final shape for the Final Report. Please consider some possible times you may be available this week and next. Apologies for the length of this email. Attached is Annex D of the draft Final Report that contains the following high-level changes in redline from the Initial Report: * Converted Purpose lettering to Purpose numbering (A to 1), including Processing Activity codes and the data flow map(s) * The addition of sidebar comments of areas that should be considered as each of the workbooks is reviewed, sourced from: * Items remaining not yet considered at publication of initial report * Latest agreed to purpose statements from Toronto * Input from ICANN Org (see below) * Other global changes identified across all Purpose workbooks, pending dependencies from plenary or the legal committee What are the key activities this small-team should accomplish? * confirm the logic of processing activities across collection, transfer, disclosure and retention * confirm data flow maps * confirm data elements for each processing activity * reconcile most recent recommendation text for Rec #s 4, 5, 6 and 8 to the processing activities and data elements * confirm and make consistent purpose rationale statements * others to be discussed What is out-of-scope for the small-team? * Purpose Statements from Toronto; the latest language will only be referenced in confirming the logic of the processing activities and data elements * The deliberation on the lawful basis until input has been received from the Legal Committee Other key tasks: * Await Purpose 1 proposal from RySG to split into Purpose 1A & 1B * Final conclusions on the Thick Whois Policy deliberations at the plenary, as it should be properly represented in the workbooks * Rows 72-82 of Registration Data Fields Comparison (not discussed for this meeting, but is additional input from ICANN Org on certain provisions in current RyAs) For the first meeting: * A quick review of changes to Annex D made from the Initial Report * A discussion of the small team’s approach and other ideas/requirements based from the public comment(s) that suggest this review * A review of input received from Francisco based on a technical perspective (may align to some of the logic concerns from RySG) * Mostly circle the logic discussions around Purpose 1 and 2 * Quick review of consolidated data elements by processing activity charts (updates started, but depends on updates to workbooks) ***Below you will see in RED actions/response to Francisco’s input to the data elements. Virtually all of these have been imported into the attached Annex D either via redline suggested change or a comment or both for the team to consider. Lastly, I will be forward this email to the main list to announce the scheduling of this call and allow for others interested to join, given that not all were present in Toronto. See you tomorrow. Thank you B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb Please see below additional input: 1. In recommendations 4 and 5: “Domain Name” is not a field generated by the registry/registrar, but provided by the registrant. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report 2. In recommendation 4 and 5: “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” is an optional field, i.e., not all the registrars add their own expiration date. However, if a registrar sets this field, they must transmit it to the registry. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report; comment made in Purpose 1 workbook to be reviewed by small team as this was formerly marked as Required. 3. In recommendation 4: “Reseller” is optional. However, if a registrar sets this field, they must transmit it to the registry. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report; ; comment made in Purpose 1 workbook to be reviewed by small team as this was formerly marked as Required. 4. In recommendation 4: They may want to signal that “Domain Status” can appear more than once. BAC: Updated in workbooks as footnote, will be updated in Final Report: The field will now be listed as “Domain Status(es)” 5. In recommendation 4: “Tech ID” is not optional by itself; I think what they meant is to say that providing a technical contact is optional, however, if one is provide there will be a “Tech ID” field; that is also probably the intend for the other technical contact fields. BAC: Yes, that is the intent. 6. In recommendation 4: “Name Server IP Address” can appear more than once and it is not generated by the registry/registrar, but provided by the registrant (in the general case, it just so happens that some registrants provide the DNS hosting service and so they provide these in such cases on behalf of the registrant). BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: The field will now be listed as “NameServer(s)” 7. In recommendation 5: “Registry Domain ID”, “Registry Registrant ID”, and “Tech ID” are not transferred from registrar to registry. The registry creates these. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: Question: Just to confirm, if I were perform a RDDS query at the Registrar, these three fields will not be displayed? 8. In recommendation 5: “Registrar Whois Server”, “Registrar URL”, “Registrar Abuse Contact Email” and “Registrar Abuse Contact Phone” are not transmitted to the registry with each registration in EPP; they are provided to the registry once by each registrar and used for each registration a registrar has. I’m not sure if you want to flag this or not. BAC: Added as footnote on Purpose 1 table 9. In recommendation 5: “Updated Date” is not transmitted by the registrar to the registry. The registry sets this in its database when the registrar makes any update to the domain name (e.g., change DNS servers). BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: 10. In recommendation 5: “Creation Date” is not transmitted by the registrar to the registry. The registry sets this in its database when the name is created. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: 11. In recommendation 5: “Registry Expiry Date” is not transmitted by the registrar to the registry. The registry sets/updates this in its database when the name is created, renewed, and possible as a result of other operations. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: 12. In recommendation 5: “Registrar” and “Registrar IANA ID” are not transmitted by the registrar to the registry. The registry knows this when onboarding the registrar independent of any given registration. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: 13. In recommendation 5: “Domain Status” (which is a field that can appear multiple times) may or may not be set by the registrar; some status are set by the registrar, some are set by the registry. BAC: Added as footnote on Purpose 1 table 14. In recommendation 5: “DNSSEC” is not transmitted by the registrar to the registry. The registry derives this from other information provided by the registrar, i.e., DNSKEY or DS records. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: 15. In recommendation 5: “Last Update of Whois Database” is not transmitted by the registrar to the registry. The registry knows when this happened, i.e., when the registry updated the database that contains the record being asked for. BAC: Updated in workbooks, will be updated in Final Report: 16. In recommendation 6, numeral 6: the text should be updated to something like “… the EPDP Team recommends be transferred by Registries and/or Registrars (as the case may be) to data escrow providers …” Some of the fields are only available to the registry and it only makes sense for the registry to escrow those; adding something to the effect of the above language would allow later in the process to define explicitly which fields are escrowed by registry and which by registrars. Alternatively and preferably, the EPDP may want to separate the recommendation in two, one for registries, another for registrars. BAC: Agreed on the preference, and that is why Purpose 4 is split into two workbooks 4A-Registrar, 4B Registry. I think for the purpose of the Final report, we should remove the brown consolidated table, and create a distinct table for the Rr and Ry, representing the specific data fields transferred to the Escrow Provider. This will be flagged for the small team review. 17. In recommendation 6: it should be clarified that “optional” fields must be escrowed if data exists. BAC: Added footnote to Purpose 4B workbook, we’ll add to Final Report’s recommendations section upon executing #16 above. 18. In recommendation 6: “DNSSEC” should not be escrowed. Instead the related DNSKEY or DS records from which this field is derived must be escrowed. BAC: Added comment to Purpose 4B workbook to address with small team. 19. In recommendation 6: “Last Update of Whois Database” should not be escrowed. As explained above, this field indicates when the registry updated the database that contains the record being asked for. It only makes sense in the context of a response to a given query. BAC: This will be addressed in #16 above; confirmed that Purpose 4B workbook properly transfers this field, while the 4A workbook does not. 20. In recommendation 6, question 3: perhaps the EPDP should consider language similar to what the 2017 base registry agreement has in specification 2 regarding what should be escrowed: “the universe of Registry objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary in order to offer all of the approved Registry Services”. BAC: This can be addressed in #16 above? 21. In recommendation 8: the table is missing to list the Registrant ID and Tech ID to indicate whether they should be redacted or not. BAC: Confirmed. This table should be updated. I flagged in the Purpose 2 workbook for the small team to confirm these two fields. “Registry Registrant ID” shows disclosed and redacted. However, “Tech ID” is not designated as being disclosed. The consolidated data elements table also has this flagged to be addressed. 22. Recommendation 9 does not appear clear enough. BAC: Being considered by EPDP Plenary, substantial changes deliberated in Toronto that will changes the recommendation language from the Initial Report. 23. Recommendation 11 seems to be missing the list of data elements to be retained. BAC: Retention is still an active issue under deliberation by the EPDP. The small team will also examine the logic of retention across each of the 7 purposes, by role. Purpose 1 workbook contains the Processing Activity and data elements that will be retained, but it is implied that it is both for Registrars and Registries. Should two Processing Activities in the workbook be created to distinguish and Rr and Ry retention tag? Recommendation 11 only mentions Registrars, should it also include Registries (or via a distinct recommendation?) 24. Recommendation 12 includes a few elements to be developed during the implementation of the policy (e.g., timeliness of responses, format, logging) that are probably too big topics to be left for implementation. It would be better if the policy dealt with them. BAC: Retention is still an active issue under deliberation by the EPDP. 25. Annex D: various data element matrices use as key { “1” = Required “(1)” = Optional “-“ = Not Required or Optional}. The last two elements could benefit from clarification as to: 1) what it means to be optional as described above; and 2) whether “-“ is not required or optional; I don’t think it is helpful to have these in one element. BAC: Added as issue to address in small team review of workbooks.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda for EPDP Team Meeting #38 - Tuesday 22 January at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

As a reminder, the public comment review tools and discussion tables for today’s meeting can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg. For your convenience, you will find here attached the discussion tables for today’s topics. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 21, 2019 at 09:54 To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda for EPDP Team Meeting #38 - Tuesday 22 January at 14.00 UTC Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which has been scheduled for Tuesday 22 January at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ============ EPDP Meeting #38 Agenda Tuesday, 22 January 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 1. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Recap from F2F meeting and next steps * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report * 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[1]” (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) * 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) 10 minute break * Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns 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) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * General Comments (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…) * Initial thoughts and suggestions * Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further, as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Program Status
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Milton, ARS can readily be considered part of Purpose 5 if we change the references to Contractual Compliance (upper case denoting a specific department) and make it more general. It is effectively an audit. The language in the purpose rationale is very specific and would need to be generalized. When I had suggested this earlier, there was resistance to doing that, wanting to keep it strictly related to the tasks of the Contractual Compliance department. Alan At 21/01/2019 01:49 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Hi, Kurt For the most part I concur with what you?ve put here, but I have two differences that I?d like to record: 1. I was asked to summarize the public comments on Rec 1 (additional purposes). My work was submitted to the list. It shows that ARS is asking for data disclosure to ICANN for compliance purposes. Ergo, I have a hard time understanding why it is not already covered by Purpose 5. While I agree that we may need more legal opinion on whether ICANN is a controller, which would affect its ability to obtain data for compliance purposes, we did not agree to push ARS as a ?new purpose? to Phase 2 nor to consider it as a derivation of Purpose 2 (response to lawful disclosure requests) because it clearly does not fit in either category. I don?t think this is a controversial recommendation; whatever your view of ARS, it is hardly debatable that this is a compliance issue not a new purpose. 2. On Purpose 1, it was clear that there is not, and never will be, consensus on adding ?obligations? to Purpose 1. Obligations to third parties are covered by Purpose 2, and obligations to ICANN, Registries and Registrars are covered by the clauses referring to ?subject to contractual terms, conditions and policies.? Of the small group that was pushing adding the term ?obligations,? no one was able to make a credible case that such obligations are not covered by other purposes or by the existing language. So that is a settled issue. We are waiting for wording revisions from the CPH that would split this into two purposes, that?s all I recall. Hope your summary of program status can be modified to reflect these comments. Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] <http://www.internetgovernance.org/> From: Gnso-epdp-team [ mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 8:47 PM To: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Program Status Hi Everyone: Thank you again for you attentiveness and doggedness last week. Terrific. Attached is a status of our work. The first is an overall status outline all issues; the second is a tabular listing of the status of each Purpose and Recommendation. Please read both docs to get a complete picture. We will follow up with guides for each of the upcoming meetings. Thank you again, Kurt _______________________________________________ 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

EPDP Program Status
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

Hi Everyone: Thank you again for you attentiveness and doggedness last week. Terrific. Attached is a status of our work. The first is an overall status outline all issues; the second is a tabular listing of the status of each Purpose and Recommendation. Please read both docs to get a complete picture. We will follow up with guides for each of the upcoming meetings. Thank you again, Kurt

2 1

Proposed Agenda for EPDP Team Meeting #38 - Tuesday 22 January at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which has been scheduled for Tuesday 22 January at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ============ EPDP Meeting #38 Agenda Tuesday, 22 January 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 1. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Recap from F2F meeting and next steps * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report * 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[1]” (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns 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) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes) * 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) * Deliberate (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 10 minute break * Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns 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) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * General Comments (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…) * Initial thoughts and suggestions * Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. ________________________________ [1] The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further, as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.

1 0

**Resending Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Julie Bisland Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

**Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours** 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/8pUWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 22 January 2019 for 3 hours
by Julie Bisland Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 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/8pUWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

For your review - draft EPDP Team Final Report
by Marika Konings Jan. 20, 2019

Jan. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As discussed, the Staff Support Team has prepared a first draft of the Final Report for your review (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…] In addition to the administrative updates to reflect that this is the Final Report, a new section has been added concerning the public comment period on the Initial Report. Furthermore, following the outcomes of the Toronto F2F meeting, the relevant recommendations and other sections of the report have been updated to reflect: * Highlighted in green – purposes / recommendations that have received the general support of the EPDP Team for inclusion * Highlighted in blue – items that are still under active consideration (if you have suggestions in relation to these items, please make sure to introduce these as part of the relevant agenda items for upcoming meetings) * Highlighted in yellow – updates to be made following review of language to reflect the approach that has been in principle agreed by the EPDP Team * Other redline changes – intended to clarify and/or address input provided by the EPDP Team during its deliberations Similar to how this was done for the Initial Report, you are requested to provide your group’s input via the following google document (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) Please refrain from proposing edits to the sections highlighted in green as the current wording reflects in certain cases a carefully crafted compromise. Any changes in relation to these sections will need to go back to the full EPDP Team review. For other sections, minor updates / corrections will be applied by staff. Any substantive changes / edits will be brought back to the EPDP Team for consideration. As discussed in Toronto, the audience for this report is the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board, so please keep this in mind as you consider possible structural changes to the report. As you are also aware, there are a number of elements that are required to be included in the Final Report (whether it is in the body of the report, an annex or by reference). As also discussed, following publication of the Final Report, the EPDP Team may want to consider whether it would be helpful to produce a summary version that would be specifically intended for external audiences? Please commence your review as soon as possible. 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…>.

4 3

Notes, action items and outcomes of day 3 EPDP F2F
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the notes, action items, and outcomes of Day 3 of the EPDP Team F2F meeting in Toronto. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Publication, Disclosure Requests (Recc 12), and Unified Access Model
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Just a follow-up on Friday’s discussion of Recommendation 12, regarding how third parties make disclosure requests under the “reasonable access” requirement in the TempSpec. During that discussion, it would have been helpful to display the attached 1-page diagram to show the relationship between Publication, Disclosure Requests, and Unified Access to Whois data. Our Recc 12 discussion applies to the lower-eft corner of the diagram. On the right side of the diagram is the Unified Access Model (UAM) we will address in phase 2 of this EPDP. A few of us put this diagram together after Barcelona, when ICANN Org began exploring a Unified Access Model where ICANN could assume GDPR legal liability in order to fulfill access requests from accredited entities. I sincerely hope this helps frame our EPDP work, so that we can move quickly to a final report on Phase 1 (left side), then get to work on the right side in Phase 2. Best, Steve -- Steve DelBianco President NetChoice +1.703.615.6206

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Kobe
by Arasteh Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear Ayden Thanks But this should be considered with a very specific and particular situation if some people that due to the current circumstances would be in problem ICCAN sending enormous amount of money elsewhere which either could have been économiser or not spent we do the same in EPDP I do not get into the details I merely ask Kurt to reconsider the travel support fir certain cases like me which are in serious problem without getting into the philosophical discussion on how public money should be spent . I understand one if your members in civil society facing the same problem that I am facing I respectfully request that this adhoc case be treated separately and allow people’s working since last June to continue to work on the last mile of the process and NOT bringing the saving issues here otherwise I will formally bring many issues to the process Pls be kind and favourably comment and allow Kurt to resolve these very limited two. ASR’s tgat ask travel support in his Team Regards Have a safe journey Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > My comment was not directed to you personally. I was simply noting that we were allocated a budget for travel support that I believe we have exhausted. Widening participation is an important objective but it should only happen in line with our budget. As a representative of civil society I am well aware of the challenges that can arise in levelling the playing field and ensuring voices without financial or state muscle are heard. Alas, I think ICANN’s current system of allocating travel support is broken, and does not recognise the fact that certain stakeholders who are funded by ICANN are actually in a position to self-fund their participation. I support the principle of there being travel funding, but as ICANN is a non-profit, there exist times when we need to question when the spending of public interest money is appropriate or proper. This is not a question for the EPDP team, but it is one which I think is important. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 20:47, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Dear Auden >> My message was addressed to Kurt >> I mentioned special circumstances for few people >> This who can afford travelling on their own money are most welcome >> But we need to understand the practical problem of few people that need to be assisted >> We have been attending earlier meeting and it would not be fair that last meeting be unfounded >> No doubt many of you do not need any travel support fir obvious reasons but why you objecting to my request and request of one other NCSG Member >> Let us have such travel support and continue to work with each other >> Tks >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 18 Jan 2019, at 15:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: >>> >>> Respectfully, the budget we were given was always limited to three face-to-face meetings (one of which must be alongside an ICANN public meeting), and we have likely exhausted our contingency on external legal advice, facilitation services, and GDPR training. So I do think it is understandable that there would not be travel funding available for Kobe. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Friday, January 18, 2019 3:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> > >

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] ICANN Org response - redaction of city field
by Margie Milam Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Hi Marika & Team – Thank you for all of the hard work this week. Will you be circulating notes of the outcomes of our deliberations? It will be helpful so we can share with our constituencies. Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] ICANN Org response - redaction of city field Dear EPDP Team, Here is the ICANN Org response to the question why city field is redacted in the Temporary Specification: Regarding the EPDP Team’s question about why the City field is redacted in the Temp Spec, the Cookbook provides the following rationale: "The registrant’s state/province and country will be published, but the address fields that could be used to more specifically identify the registrant would not be included in the public WHOIS (e.g. street, city, postal code). This would enable non-accredited users to determine the registrant’s general location and likely jurisdiction but would generally not enable identification of the registrant”. The link to the Cookbook: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-0…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>. The above quote is on page 26. The response will get posted on the relevant page on the wiki. 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…>.

4 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Kobe
by Arasteh Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear Ayden By the way I did not attend the first meeting due to entry visa problem Thus I am still eligible for another ( third meeting ) in Kobe Pls recognize that all of us need to be equally treated Still I do not understand your rigidity speaking on behalf of the chair You may nit favored my attendance but I am a formal member of the team Pls kindly reconsider your position and demonstrate some degree of flexibility for those who faces serious difficulties due to prevailing circumstances Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Jan 2019, at 15:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Respectfully, the budget we were given was always limited to three face-to-face meetings (one of which must be alongside an ICANN public meeting), and we have likely exhausted our contingency on external legal advice, facilitation services, and GDPR training. So I do think it is understandable that there would not be travel funding available for Kobe. > > Ayden > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 3:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Kobe
by Arasteh Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear Auden My message was addressed to Kurt I mentioned special circumstances for few people This who can afford travelling on their own money are most welcome But we need to understand the practical problem of few people that need to be assisted We have been attending earlier meeting and it would not be fair that last meeting be unfounded No doubt many of you do not need any travel support fir obvious reasons but why you objecting to my request and request of one other NCSG Member Let us have such travel support and continue to work with each other Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Jan 2019, at 15:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Respectfully, the budget we were given was always limited to three face-to-face meetings (one of which must be alongside an ICANN public meeting), and we have likely exhausted our contingency on external legal advice, facilitation services, and GDPR training. So I do think it is understandable that there would not be travel funding available for Kobe. > > Ayden > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 3:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >

1 0

ICANN Compliance Input
by Marika Konings Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As a follow up to the discussion on the public comments in relation to recommendation #7, please find attached and below the information that was provided previously by ICANN Compliance to the EPDP Team. If there are any further questions that would help inform the deliberations on recommendation #7, please share these with the list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ================== Use of data by ICANN Org 1. How does ICANN Contractual Compliance use WHOIS data? For example, in the case of a WHOIS inaccuracy complaint, can ICANN Contractual Compliance retrieve data from escrow, or does ICANN Contractual Compliance typically ask the registrar or the registry operator? ICANN Contractual Compliance uses WHOIS data to review WHOIS Inaccuracy complaints and other complaints related to domain management (e.g., Transfers, Unauthorized Transfer, Domain Deletion, Renewals, etc.). Depending on the nature of the complaint, ICANN Contractual Compliance may ask the registrar for relevant data to investigate the complaint. Compliance may also look at the Registry public WHOIS to supplement its review or processing. Compliance does not use escrowed data for complaint processing as it is not one of the conditions for escrow deposits release under the data escrow agreements and ICANN agreements. 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

ICANN Org response - redaction of city field
by Marika Konings Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Here is the ICANN Org response to the question why city field is redacted in the Temporary Specification: Regarding the EPDP Team’s question about why the City field is redacted in the Temp Spec, the Cookbook provides the following rationale: "The registrant’s state/province and country will be published, but the address fields that could be used to more specifically identify the registrant would not be included in the public WHOIS (e.g. street, city, postal code). This would enable non-accredited users to determine the registrant’s general location and likely jurisdiction but would generally not enable identification of the registrant”. The link to the Cookbook: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-0…. The above quote is on page 26. The response will get posted on the relevant page on the wiki. 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

Recommendation 1 (new purposes)
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

During our meeting Friday I was asked to analyze public comments on Recommendation 1 to see whether there was anything other than Purpose O (research by ICANN) that needed to be considered. As you can see from the attached spreadsheet, the answer is a simple No. There is only one new purpose proposed, namely George Kirikos's proposal for collecting data to establish the ownership history of domain names. But this did not obtain support from any other commenter or from people within the EPDP. All other requests for "additional" Purposes were either covered by existing purposes and recommendations (usually Purpose 2 but also Purpose 5 and Recommendation 7) or were variations on the "research" purpose which we considered. Several other comments did not propose new purposes at all but rather made comments about Purposes already proposed in the initial report; e.g., the request by RySG to clarify to which party (ICANN, Registries, Registrars) purposes were attributed. Regarding the "Research" purpose, as we discussed Friday it is not clear whether it is needed until ICANN's role is specified. As Ruth stated, if ICANN is the controller for registration data it can use the data for research anyway. I would conclude that in responding to public comment we can use this analysis as the basis for our response. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

1 0

EPDP Team meeting during ICANN 64 Kobe
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Derar Kurt, Pls by the end of this meeting kindly clarify whether there would be travel support for the above-mentioned meeting The sooner the better to enable finding cheaper ticket " Marche grise" Regards Kavouss

2 1

Fwd: [council] GDPR EPDP
by Stephanie Perrin Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

this is a very useful recent opinion; I find the highlighted article summarized the guidance in a helpful way. Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] GDPR EPDP Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:55:22 +0100 From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com><mailto:erika@erikamann.com> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> All - Maybe helpful for your EPDP discussion’s. Keep in mind this document is released by the Belgian national DPA and not the European cross national board of DPAs. Nonetheless I assume that they will have discussed this with their colleagues but I had no chance (yet) to check this. Regards, Erika Belgium's privacy watchdog publishes guidance on the notions of controller and processor<https://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?i=6685664&l=88SJB9G> CMS Belgium[CMS Belgium logo]<http://www.cms-db.com/> Belgium<https://www.lexology.com/hub/belgium> January 17 2019 Recently, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“DPA<https://www.dataprotectionauthority.be/>”) published guidance on controller and processor concepts (see original documents in French<https://www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/sites/privacycommission/files/docu…> and in Dutch<https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/sites/privacycommission/files…>), refreshing the distinction between these two concepts and their implications. In view of recent questions about the qualification and concrete application of the concepts of controller and processor, the DPA has decided to recap the principles and definitions applicable to these concepts. Sent from my iPhone

1 0

MEETING STARTS IN 15 MIN--REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / 16-18 January 2019 F2F meetings
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP F2F meeting taking place on 16-18 January 2019 in Toronto, Canada via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/sAn_BQ 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…> Kind Regards, Terri

1 2

Notes, action items and outcomes of day 2
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the notes, action items and outcomes of Day 2 of the EPDP Team F2F meeting in Toronto. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 22 January 2019 for 3 hours
by Terri Agnew Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 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 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8pUWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

why purpose 2 is relevant to ICANN's mission
by Chris Disspain Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 2019

Attached is the explanation I am just giving to the EPDP team regarding purpose 2 and ICANN’s mission. Cheers, CD

3 2

Notes, action items and outcomes of day 1
by Marika Konings Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the notes, action items and outcomes of day 1 of the EPDP Team F2F meeting in Toronto. 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

REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / 16-18 January 2019 F2F meetings
by Terri Agnew Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP F2F meeting taking place on 16-18 January 2019 in Toronto, Canada via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/sAn_BQ 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…> Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

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.

8 10

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

Small Team Conclusions
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 12, 2019

Jan. 12, 2019

Hi Everyone: Thank you to the Small Teams for their participation and work this week. Attached, you will find the first compilation of the conclusions reached by the Small Teams. This first compilation is of those topics where Small Teams A or B agreed on a conclusion either to keep the Recommendation wording as it appears in the Initial Report or agreed to an amendment based upon public comment. Remember that the Small Teams reviewed and discussed the public comments of those Recommendations that appeared to be un- or less controversial. They worked to identify any issues or new information raised in the public comment that warranted further discussion within the Small Team. If the Small Team agreed on the existing text or proposed edit(s), these agreements were catalogued by the Support Staff for the purpose of sharing with the full EPDP Team. To facilitate your review, the Support Team has compiled the Small Teams’ conclusions into a packet organized by Recommendation and specifically identifying for each: (1) The Initial Report Language of the purpose/recommendation (2) The proposed updated language of the purpose/recommendation (or confirmation of the existing language) (3) Small Team’s rationale (For a complete review of the small team’s deliberations and considerations, please refer to the notes, action items and recordings that were shared with the full EPDP Team mailing list and posted to the wiki.) The second packet, to be delivered soon, covers cases where the Small Team did not agree on wording or where it agreed on wording to address part of the concerns but not all. In this work, specific issues were captured to help the full group in its deliberation. We request that each stakeholder group, as one, review the Small Team conclusions for discussion at the meeting in Toronto with the goal that we can approve some / all of these conclusions without discussion. The Small Teams were designed to have representation from each group within the EPDP Team, with the goal that the full group would afford these agreements with a degree of deference. In the event, however, that you identify an issue with any of the attached agreements, please respond with the specific issue and a proposed resolution to the EPDP list. TIMING: To achieve the intended benefit of this work, each Team stakeholder group is tot review the packet and identify issues or disagreements (if any) in time for closure in Toronto. Given that we are on the eve of the meeting, we can allot time for the groups to deliberate once in Toronto. However, please review this packet beforehand as we think we can dispose of this set of recommendations with little or no discussion. Thank you in advance for your attention to this work, and we look forward to seeing you in Toronto! Best regards, Kurt

1 0

ICANN org's questions on EPDP Initial Report
by Trang Nguyen Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Congratulations on meeting an important milestone with the publication of the Initial Report. In reviewing the Initial Report against the Temporary Specification to better understand what changes the EPDP Team is recommending, ICANN org identified some clarifying questions that we'd like to bring to the EPDP Team to address along with other questions and comments submitted through the public comment forum. As discussions progress, ICANN org may have additional questions. Please consider the comparisons to be drafts and if there are any mistakes, please let us know. Happy holidays! Cheers, Dan and Trang ICANN Org Liaisons

2 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-Small Team A / Thursday, 10 January 2019
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Small Team A call held on Thursday, 10 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ko4WBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-small-call-a-10jan19-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3vb30oia4a/<https://participate.icann.org/p3vb30oia4a/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=96c17a3661647f53…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Team B / Thursday, 10 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Team B call held on Thursday, 10 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iI4WBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-small-call-b-10jan19-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5ovuuh9fdr/ ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Notes, Actions - Small Team A - Meeting 2, 10 January 2018
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

Dear All, Below, please find notes from Small Team A’s call on 10 January 2018. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Small Team A 10 January 2019 High-level Notes Actions Purpose 4 Initial Report Language: Provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data in the event of a business or technical failure, or other unavailability of a Registrar or Registry Operator. Proposed Updated Language: Provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data in the event of a business or technical failure of a Registrar or Registry Operator, or unavailability [of a Registrar or Registry Operator, as defined in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreement, respectively.] (See below notes for further discussion.) Purpose 6 Initial Report Language: Coordinate, operationalize, and facilitate policies for resolution of disputes regarding or relating to the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names), namely, the UDRP, URS, PDDRP, RRDRP, and future developed domain name registration-related dispute procedures for which it is established that the processing of personal data is necessary Proposed Updated Language: Coordinate, operationalize, and facilitate policies for resolution of disputes regarding or relating to the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, [but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names]), namely, the UDRP, URS, PDDRP, RRDRP, [and the TDRP.] (See below notes for further discussion.) --- Notes Reminder of Review Method: 1. Display the discussion table for the purpose/recommendation under review. (Note: the discussion table is a tool for discussion; it is not a replacement of the PCRT.) 2. 5 minutes of silent review of discussion table/PCRT 3. 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? 4. Take time to highlight comments made by individuals or organizations who are not represented within the EPDP Team to ensure these voices are heard. 5. Discussion: a. Does the concern warrant a change to the purpose/recommendation? If so, the concern is [rationale provided by commenter], and a proposal to address the concern is [described in the comment]. b. If the team does not believe the concern warrants a change to the purpose/recommendation, why not? Answer may include, but is not limited to: out of scope for this EPDP, the EPDP has previously discussed this concern in its formulation of the purpose, recommendation, etc. 6. Closure where possible. 7. Support staff to document outcome of discussion and forward the outcomes to the full EPDP Team. For purpose of reviewing Tuesday's work, the Leadership Team compiled a brief summary including Initial Report Language, Proposed New Language (where applicable) and the accompanying rationale. We plan to send these summaries to the full team so that the full team is able to review and approve (where possible). We will communicate to the team that we would like the EPDP Team to give deference to the discussion of the representative small teams. Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data For past, present and registered names holders - should not add this b/c retention periods need to be put in place. We also haven't discussed legacy - it's not as easy as changing the purpose. In the interest of transparency and full documentation, we understand the nuance in Purpose 1, but there is no harm in having a separate purpose that deals with disclosure to a third party. It's a good point, but it's OK to have a separate purpose. "Or Other unavailability" is indeed vague, and support removal. Is there something we did not cover with "other unavailability", if not - remove it. Concern with removal - if you look at a registrar who does not have a business failure - their computers are running, but they don't do anything - that is not a technical or business failure, but they are functionally not providing the service. Could consider RAA failure or ICANN termination Would not apply George K's comment due to data retention periods Important to be specific about what other unavailability means. Concepts such as reasonable and substantial are well understood - it's a non trivial type of failure - this is something more lasting or serious. Past and present - even if you step behind the scenario where you are covered by data retention - that is unclear. This could include historic lookups, and am therefore uncomfortable with this suggestion. Another choice of words - operational failure, de-accreditation, termination by ICANN concept that is missing is substantial or sustained or longlasting failure Personal data may be processed for the purposes of escrow within the purpose since that is in the contract. Provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data in the event of a business or technical failure of a Registrar or Registry Operator, as defined in the contract. [upon expiration without renewal or termination of this Agreement]. Provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data in the event of a business or technical failure of a Registrar or Registry Operator, as defined in the contract. [upon expiration without renewal or termination of this Agreement]. We need to be sure to include business and technical failure b/c sometimes deposits are transferred on a temporary basis, so there is not always a termination. Proposed language: Provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data in the event of a business or technical failure of a Registrar or Registry Operator, or unavailability of a Registrar or Registry Operator, as defined in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreement, respectively. Purpose 6 - Coordinate Rights Protection Mechanisms Few recommendations to change the words at the beginning - one suggestion is to change it to "operationalize" and also add the word "establish" Remove "future developed policies" Comments regarding the "use" of such domain names Others would like to interject language - DRPs also have to do the use of domain names and to make that clearer. Third change - enumeration of DRPs - some believe PDDRP and RRDRP should be taken out. Others suggested all should be taken out since there may be other dispute resolution processes such as disputes in court. Why should future developed DRPs be removed - there is no reason to assume there won't be a DRP in the future. The reason we should not put in future type language such as that - you have to be very specific with the data subject. This does not work. Where there is an envisaged processing of personal data - it has to go through a privacy impact assessment at that time not now. It is not inconceivable to have a new policy in the future and the specificity could be given at that time. Like the inclusion of future-developed policies - but this is not a die in the ditch issue. This should be taken out b/c it causes problems to keep it in as it will affect the legitimacy of this purpose. Should we include a recommendation that future policies need to go through a privacy impact analysis? This purpose could be subsumed by Purpose 2. We put this here b/c it is a major type of action and registrants should be aware of it. We should keep it and be specific about what policies affect it. You may not need data to file a PDDRP or RRDRP, but you may need data to address a complaint. Action: Support Staff to Memorialize how future policies are affected by this. Possible edit: Coordinate, operationalize, and facilitate policies for resolution of disputes regarding or relating to the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names), namely, the UDRP, URS, PDDRP, and the RRDRP. Either delete the parenthetical, or it needs to map to the bylaws Regarding the first words - do any of these comments present new information that warrant a change? We may need facilitate to account for the compliance function. It is important to limit the purpose - in favor of specificity For the PDDRP and RRDRP may need to process registration data. It's not just the registration - it's also the use - adding the wording use and or registration of domain names would cover Alan and Margie's points We may need to include mediation. Should we have the three words, or not. Should we have the parenthetical or not. Should we list the policies or not. Should we include procedures outside of ICANN policy or not. Action: Alan G. to summarize the discussion for the group. Problem with suggestion of referring to DRPs listed in the by-laws is that consensus policies may not be listed in the bylaws. Respect language the group has settled on. Provide Option 2 but highlight the additional discussion Coordinate, operationalize, and facilitate policies for resolution of disputes regarding or relating to the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names), namely, the UDRP, URS, PDDRP, RRDRP, and the TDRP. Recommendation #12 - Reasonable access Majority of comments seem to allude to a unified access model Is there anything in the comments that would cause us to amend this recommendation? Sympathetic to concerns about predictability - we need some proposals around this. We have two issues here: (1) inclusion of access into final report; (2) some of the detailed comments - only way to address comments fairly - thank you for your comments - they will be taken into account in Phase 2, otherwise the team will relitigate the same issues. This is a controversial area - the stakeholders have well thought through and predictable lines Disagree - you cannot ask a blanket approval - what this does is it creates predictability for knowing how and where to process a request. Proposal to have this conversation with the broader team. This is a controversial topic, but it is within our scope at this juncture. We've put a lot of work into this as a team - where we are - we should add more detail in relation to the comments without going backwards. Read this as a - we can't wait for the full UAM - we need something in the meantime. This is a discussion for the plenary. We need to address the intermediate stage long before we have the full UAM - we need to talk about making sure there is enough specificity so contracted parties need to understand what they need to do - and that compliance can enforce. This is not a discussion in Phase 1 of the access model. It is unclear what various folks are asking for - what are we doing in plenary - there is consensus on the fact that this is not a small team issue. We are saying we cannot solve this in the timeline of the EPDP; therefore, current requirements must remain in place until Phase 2. Do public comments necessitate a change? Proper form is in plenary. We had come to a good place - this was not as controversial as we expected it to be. We could put down you must respond within three days, but not every access request can be responded to within three days. There are many considerations to this - these things take time, and arbitrary timelines can be problematic. Needs to be understanding that we will do our best. Let’s not squander the good will – many comments may have missed the point of this recommendation. If we get through this in the plenary, we can put this in the real policy. The real issue is the recommendation as written says – we will make no changes until we have the UAM implemented. We may never have a UAM, so we need to do something as an intermediate step. The reason to have the clarity in the policy now that these are the things the policy should cover on both sides – for CPH and the parties requesting access. I don’t understand why this recommendation is no longer OK – and not sure why people think further conversation on this could be productive in Toronto. Recommendation – discuss in plenary, focus on how to translate these into temp spec language, and then ask the question – what can be standardized in the info registrars provide to the public on this. For those who would like amendments – please come prepared to discuss what those specific changes could be. Recommendation #14 - Responsible parties What relationships exist for what purposes – we need to do a purpose by purpose analysis of where these relationships exist – this discussion could be settled in plenary. Purpose 1 - Establish rights of RNH

1 0

draft of final report
by Anderson, Marc Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Kurt and leadership team, Given that we are in the middle of our review of public comments and still have the face to face meeting next week, I feel somewhat bad asking this, however February 1st is 3 weeks from tomorrow. Given the timeline, I'm requesting an initial draft of the final report for working group members to begin to review and provide feedback on. The initial report was very much written for its intended purpose of updating the community on the progress we have made and soliciting input on the issues we are grappling with so I'm assuming some amount of rework will be necessary. I'm also mindful that the bar of consensus on final (phase 1) policy recommendations to the GNSO council is higher that of good enough for the initial report. The sooner we can see the draft and start working against that the better and more likely we are to meet our timelines. Thank you, 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/>

2 1

Meeting Invitation / Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / 16-18 January 2019 F2F meetings
by Terri Agnew Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP F2F meeting taking place on 16-18 January 2019 in Toronto, Canada via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/sAn_BQ 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…> Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Small Team B Meeting #2 Notes and Action Items
by Marika Konings Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Dear Small Team B members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s small team B meeting. Please take note of the action item: * small team B to review notes and proposals and respond immediately with any concerns as the output will go to the full team in preparation for the F2F meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Small Team B Meeting #2 Thursday, 10 January 2019 Notes and Action Items Small Team B Participants: * Benedict Addis (SSAC) * Beth Bacon & Mark Anderson (RySG) * Brian King (IPC) * Chris Lewis Evans (GAC) * James Bladel (RrSG) * Mark Svancarek (BC) * Milton Mueller & Amr Elsadr (NCSG) * Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC) * Thomas rickert (ISPCP) * Daniel Halloran (ICANN Org Liaison -Legal) * Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison) * Amr Elsadr (NCSG) Actions Items: Action item #1: Small team B to review notes and proposals and respond immediately with any concerns as the findings will go to the full team next in preparation for the F2F meeting. 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 1. Roll Call * 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. Review Recommendation #13 – Controller Agreement * See Discussion Table - concerns have been grouped together where possible to facilitate consideration. * 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? * ICANN Org is working on the memo discussed previously which is expected to be shared shortly (by Monday at the latest) * RySG suggest that language is changed to not specify joint-contoller agreement but to have CPs and ICANN Org to work together to determine what type of agreement would work best. Many may be of the view that JCA is the best approach, but that may not be everyone's agreement. Important to have flexibility in the recommendation for those negotiating these agreements. RrSG comment is aligned with this perspective. * BC can support this approach, allow for sufficient enough flexibility to have ICANN Org to take on responsibility for quieries by requestors. * IPC can also support this approach. * Not be overly presecriptive but agreements will need to outline the different roles and responsibilities. * Support is conditional on ICANN assuming *some* formal responsibility here. CPs can't be compelled to disclose and also assume 100% of the risk exposure. * Does proposed RySG language capture all possible scenarios or is it better to be more general? Note that the language refers to 'such as', which should provide sufficient flexibility. * Some expressed the view that it is important to be specific here and provide guidance to ICANN Org on what is expected. How about timing? Would proposed rewording eliminate all other parties from the discussion? Could it overwrite EPDP Team recommendations? Flexibility is around the type of agreement that is put in place, not flexibility to change to policy recommendations of the working group. * General agreement that recommendation should be more flexible and not prescribe the outcome, but further review may be warranted following receipt of the ICANN Org memo. * EPDP Team does not support deletion of this recommendation as suggested by one of the commenters. * Proposed updated language: "The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org negotiates and enters into required data protection agreements such as a Data Processing Agreement (GDPR Art. 28) or Joint Controller Agreement (Art. 26), as appropriate, with the Contracted Parties. In addition to the legally required components of such agreement, the agreement shall specify the responsibilities of the respective parties for the processing activities as described therein. Indemnification clauses shall ensure that the risk for certain data processing is borne by either one or multiple parties that determine the purpose and means of the processing." Recommendation #20 - Input to Transfer Policy review (incl. Question #5) * See Discussion Table - concerns have been grouped together where possible to facilitate consideration. * 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? * Language of recommendation is fine - comments point to specific issue sthat should be addressed in the transfer review that has been recently kicked off (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irtp-status-2018-11-14-en) * Language is intended to instruct Council that additional work on the Transfer policy is needed as a result of GDPR. * Important for all to share any concerns and specifics with the GNSO Council to help inform the review and next steps. * No change needed to the recommendation. Recommendation #11 - Data retention * See Discussion Table - concerns have been grouped together where possible to facilitate consideration. * 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? * BC/IPC request consideration of a 3 year retention period - especially in the context of cyberinvestigations. Is 3 years arbitrary? Reference to TDRP makes one year defensible - CPs need something specific and not arbitrary to defend a retention period. Could two year period in the RAA be considered as an alternative? Any data retention period beyond 1 year needs to be defended - hard to justify based on what has been provided as this relates to what ICANN governs. * Needs to be made clear that the one year is a minimum required - contracted parties may need or be required to keep data longer. Similarly, local waivers may be needed. There may be altering retention periods based on national laws / retention requirements or based on the business practice, but that would not be for ICANN to govern. * Language could also be cleaned up a bit. * Note, this is just how long folks can keep data to fulful an ICANN requirement. * Consider extending retention based on notification? LE can request for freeze through G7 network which allows MLATs to be fired off in the tie needed. Would such a freeze also be enforceable by ICANN? Caution to write up policy language - CPs already take appropriate action in case of an active legal investigation. * Regarding minimums being defensible, a CP 's retention policy would need to disclose that at the time of collection regardless whether mandated by ICANN policy, local law, or individual business needs. * Parties advocating longer retention period to provide further supporting information to justify a longer data retention period. * Possible rewording: The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars are required to retain the herein-specified data elements for one year following the life of the registration. This minimum retention period is consistent the requirements of the TDRP. * Proposed modification: make clear that proposed period is a minimum period, or more specifically a period for ICANN required retention and that CPs can adjust as needed beyond that period in line with local law / requirements. Remove the 'statute of limitations' language. Further discussion needed on the recommended ICANN retention period. Recommendation #21 – Data Controller Agreements - EBERO * See Discussion Table - concerns have been grouped together where possible to facilitate consideration. * 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? * NCSG point is mooted by the words "with the non-contracted Party entities" in the Recommendation * No change needed Consider further Purpose 5 - see edits overview shared by Kristina * Registrars are proposing language to limit the scope of the recommendation. Current language is overly broad. Need to restrain ICANN's ability to gather data, should be limited to terms of enforcement of those agreements, only for purposes that are outlined in the agreements. * Proposal: Handle contractual compliance monitoring requests, audits, and complaints submitted by Registry Operators, Registrars, Registered Name Holders, and other Internet users, consistent with the terms of the registry agreement and the registrar accreditation agreements, and any applicable data processing agreements, by accessing specific data only as necessary. * Perhaps "processing" as opposed to "accessing" would be better * May consider splitting this up - intertwining two different thing, two different purposes that compliance pursues: handles monitoring and audits of their contracts, and separately handles compliance complaints. * Important to be specific and not conflate with other purposes. * Combine registrar and registry proposal - proposed rewording: 1) Handle contractual compliance monitoring requests and audit activities consistent with the terms of the registry agreement and the registrar accreditation agreements and any applicable data processing agreements, by processing specific data only as 2) Handle compliance complaints initiated by ICANN, or third parties consistent with the terms of the registry agreement and the registrar accreditation agreements. Recommendation #10 - further thoughts on how to address comments or is this to be referred to plenary? * Any suggestions to be shared on the mailing list Recommendation #16 - update from Steve, Brian, James and Kristina on possible way forward. Consider remaining concerns. * IPC/BC withdrawing its request for an additional recommendation, assuming that recommendation #16 will remain as is. * Other concerns flagged seem to concern communication issues and URS review - may not be within scope and already addressed somewhere else. May have been covered already in deliberations and language of Initial Report. Confirm submission to plenary of * Purpose 3 * Recommendation #19 Next steps: * Support staff will circulate notes and capture proposals made * Following that, small team B outcomes will be shared with full EPDP Team for review Action item #1: small team B to review notes and proposals and respond immediately with any concerns as the output will go to the full team in preparation for the F2F meeting. 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

Reminder: small team A & B assignments for Thursday, 10 January
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, the small teams will be discussing the following purposes/recommendations during the small team meetings on Thursday, 10 January at 1400 UTC. Small Team A Purpose 1 - Establish the rights of a Registered Name Holder Recommendation #12 - Reasonable access Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data Recommendation #14 - Responsible parties Small Team B Recommendation #13 – Controller Agreement Recommendation #20 - Input to Transfer Policy review (incl. Question #5) Recommendation #11 - Data retention Recommendation #21 – Data Controller Agreements - EBERO Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

FW: For the attention of small team B (Purpose 5)
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

Sorry. Here’s the link. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zOWqQ_1V7atlTmTTv9zW1oB6Sknw00WW_JVqH0W… From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 4:39 PM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: For the attention of small team B (Purpose 5) Team B: As promised, attached is a chart that sets out the Purpose 5 wording changes proposed in the public comments. Here’s a link to the Google Doc version for those that prefer it. K From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 6:26 AM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For the attention of small team B Dear Small Team B members (James/Sarah, Hadia, Amr/Ayden, Chris L., Steve, Kristina/Marc A., Thomas, Brian, Benedict, Leon, Trang and Rafik), Please find attached for your review the updated discussion tables for the purpose and recommendations that small team B discussed during yesterday’s meeting. Please note that: * The purpose 3 and recommendation #19 documents are intended to represent the proposed EPDP Team response to the concerns expressed as well as proposed modification / change, if applicable, for EPDP Team consideration. The notes of Tuesday’s meeting which represent the background to the proposed response and modification/change were already shared with the full EPDP Team and hopefully you have also been able, or will be able, to share any further background with your colleagues, as needed. * For purpose 5 and recommendations #10 and #16, some draft responses as well as some questions for small team B consideration have been added. The draft responses aim to reflect the conversation to date, but as the small team has not completed its consideration yet of these issues, these should not be considered final. You are encouraged to review these ahead of Thursday’s meeting and share any input you may have ahead of the call. In addition, you are expected to review the PCRTs (see https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) as well as the discussion tables (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001176.html) for the following purposes and recommendations ahead of Thursday’s small team B meeting. Please feel free to share your thoughts ahead of the meeting in relation to which concerns present new information and rationale that warrant further consideration and potential modifications. * Recommendation #13 – Controller Agreement * Purpose 7 - gTLD registration policy eligibility criteria * Recommendation #20 - Input to Transfer Policy review (incl. Question #5) * Recommendation #11 - Data retention 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