January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For the attention of small team B (Purpose 5)
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

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> 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

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B / Thursday, 10 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B call on Thursday, 10 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/rds-leadership/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iI4WBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A / Thursday, 10 January 2019
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A call on Thursday, 10 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-sc-budget/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ko4WBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

CANCELLED / Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Thursday, 10 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

** This meeting has been cancelled due to Small Team A and B replacing it with different join information (updated join information to be sent out shortly). Please remember to remove this from your calendars. Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Awn_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Team B / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 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 Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zIsWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-small-call-b-08jan19-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p13ci06hq71/ ** 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

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For the attention of small team B
by Marika Konings Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

Dear Small Team B members, The staff support team just realized that purpose 7 which was allocated to small team B is actually a category 3 item and as such will be reviewed by the full EPDP team. Instead, you are asked to review recommendation #21 (see attached) which was inadvertently left off the list. 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: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 12:29 To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)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

For the attention of small team B
by Marika Konings Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

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

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-Small Team A / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 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 Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-small-call-a-08jan19-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-small-call-a-08jan19-en.mp3%20 > AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4icjlr7r9o/<https://participate.icann.org/p4icjlr7r9o/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3f0335105198cd3a…> ** 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

Small Team A Meeting #1 - Notes and Action Items
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 8, 2019

Jan. 8, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s Small Team A meeting. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin Small Team A Meeting #1 Thursday, 8 January 2019 Notes and Action Items Attendees: Alan Greenberg (ALAC) Alan Woods (RYSG) Ben Butler (SSAC) Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison) Diane Plaut (IPC) Emily Taylor (RrSG) Farzaneh Badii (NCSG) Georgios Tselentis (GAC) Julf Helsingius (NCSG) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Kurt Pritz (Chair) Margie Milam (BC) Matt Serlin (RrSG) Recommendations Discussed + Proposed Small Team Approach Recommendation #15 Initial Report Language: The EPDP recommends that for the new policy on gTLD registration data, the requirements of the Temporary Specification are maintained in relation to URS and UDRP until such time as these are superseded by recommendations from the RPMs PDP WG (if any). Proposed Small Team Approach: The Small Team considered comments by URS and UDRP Providers (PCRT #9-10), and believe they merit further discussion with the plenary team. Please see PCRT comments 9 and 10 for further detail. Regarding comments about access to registration data for the purpose of assessing the merits of a UDRP Complaint (3, 5, 8, 11 of PCRT): The Small Team proposes to preserve these comments for the access discussion in Phase 2 - at which point the EPDP Team can decide if the concerns are appropriately within scope, and if so, how to address the concerns. Recommendation #18 Initial Report Language: The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org must enter into data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers in which, amongst other items, the data retention period is specifically addressed, as this will affect the ability to have publicly available decisions. Proposed Small Team Approach: Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the Small Team proposes to remove the last clause from Rec. 18, noting it is out of scope for the EPDP Team. The proposed updated recommendation for consideration by the EPDP Team: The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org must enter into data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers in which, amongst other items, the data retention period is specifically addressed. Recommendation #22 Initial Report Language: The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements: • Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy • Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS • Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy • WHOIS Data Reminder Policy • Transfer Policy • Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules Proposed Small Team Approach: Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the Small Team noted it is premature to finalize the language of the recommendation at this time. The Small Team recommends the full EPDP Team revisit this language following its finalization of the Final Report to determine if the language needs to be amended, noting specifically the inclusion of administrative/technical contact may need amendment, and the list of Consensus Policies currently listed may need amendment. Recommendation #6 Initial Report Language: 1. The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org enter into legally-compliant data processing agreements with the data escrow providers. 2. The EPDP Team recommends updates to the contractual requirements for registries and registrars to transfer data that they process to the data escrow provider to ensure consistency with the data elements workbooks that analyze the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data. 3. The data elements workbook that analyzes the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data Registration Data contains the specifically-identified data elements the EPDP Team recommends be transferred by Registries and Registrars to data escrow providers (see Annex D). These data elements are: <see Initial Report>. Proposed Small Team Approach: The Small Team noted the specific data set to be transferred from the contracted party to the data escrow provider must be discussed in a plenary meeting. Following the EPDP Team’s agreement on the data set to be transferred, whether it is a full data set or a minimal data set, the EPDP Team should revisit the specific language of this recommendation, and should also include the agreed-upon data set within the text of the recommendation (instead of referencing a workbook). Recommendation #17 Initial Report Language: The EPDP Team requests that when the EPDP Team commences its deliberations on a standardized access framework, a representative of the RPMs PDP WG shall provide an update on the current status of deliberations so that the EPDP Team may determine if/how the WG’s recommendations may affect consideration of the URS and UDRP in the context of the standardized access framework deliberations. Proposed Small Team Approach: Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the Small Team proposes to remove Recommendation 17 as an official recommendation, as this recommendation appears to be an action item instead of a policy recommendation. Instead, the Small Team proposes to preserve the language within the body of the EPDP Team’s Final Report and ensure the request is revisited during Phase 2 of the EPDP Team’s work. Notes Thanks to all for your flexibility as we try to work together to discern the best way review the comments. The leadership appreciates the feedback on the approach. Hesitant to lose a meeting as there is such limited time left before our deadline for the Final Report. This approach seeks to multiply the Team's capacity by reviewing the non-controversial recommendations with smaller teams. As we think about how to move forward, we have to find a high bar that would cause us to reconsider the hard-fought compromises in the Initial Report. The ultimate goal is to be thoughtful and expeditious at the same time. Today's 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. EPDP Team feedback: Concern with this approach by the CPH: the time demand and cost of participation is raised with this approach. Coordination is very difficult in the small team approach - feel very unprepared for this discussion. We have two meetings - we need to get into the work. a. Purpose 1 - Establish the rights of a Registered Name Holder b. Recommendation #15 - URS / UDRP The EPDP recommends that for the new policy on gTLD registration data, the requirements of the Temporary Specification are maintained in relation to URS and UDRP until such time as these are superseded by recommendations from the RPMs PDP WG (if any). You will note there was support for this recommendation across the board, but there some suggested edits provided. Comments from URS Providers - the amendments seem practical and pragmatic - these are comments we should look to incorporate and make the suggested changes. (PCRT comments 9-10) Sympathetic to the claims of looking for patterns or proving patterns of bad faith/reasonable use for UDRP; however, we are not in a position to rewrite these claims but we do not have a time to do a thorough review. Question to commenters: is there something we can do, without substantially changing the process, within our scope? Then have the RPM group look into the details? Is there some level of relief we can get without going into too much detail? The comment about the process being broken does merit more discussion. This is not an access issue. The concern could be flagged to the RPM group or an edit put in place. Amend paragraph 2 (URS Rules) of the Appendix D: Uniform Rapid Suspension by substituting the wording "Examiner" with "Provider". Amend paragraph 2 (URS Rules) of the Appendix D: Uniform Rapid Suspension and paragraph 1.2 of Appendix E: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy by substituting the wordings "Doe complaint" with "complaint against an unidentified Respondent" and adding the wording "theComplainant with" - this helps make it universal language. Small team outcome: put forward these changes to the EPDP Team. Second issue - registration data for UDRP complainants For the reasons Alan described, it would be a complicated process to release data beforehand, and this is essentially an access discussion. By getting into when and how much data to disclose at this point, we are straying into access issues. Probably best to park this for now. Reverse WHOIS type of service would not be appropriate because it is not definitive whether a domain name is an abusive registration. Once data is released, there could be research on previous UDRP decisions. The number of decisions alone is not dispositive of bad faith registrations. Providers at times may redact information from the decisions they publish. This is an access issue, but when we discuss the access, it may well be that we can recommend providing more access than the public gets. We may need to tweak some rules within the UDRP or URS. Perhaps put a placeholder here to discuss at the appropriate time. OK with deferring the access discussion, but the suggestion is - use it as a means of pushing it into that discussion. This could be considered within the EPDP or the RPM PDP WG. Is this something that needs to be flagged? EPDP can discuss this in access discussion. This is out of scope for this EPDP Team. What is suggested is to tweak the process to make it easier for complainants to make their case. The only this we should change at the moment is to make sure the process is compliant. The decision to disclose is up to the individual registry or registrar, not a blanket reverse WHOIS request. If we talk about this substantively, part of proving the UDRP is showing bad faith, which could involve patterns of abuse. The fact that the UDRP does not work now is a problem for ICANN and for the UDRP. We are talking about multiple look-ups. We will propose the two small changes from the providers. For this discussion and the effects of GDPR and UDRP, when we discuss an access model in Phase 2, we will flag this issue. When will the team have the access discussion - this would be helpful. Also note reverse WHOIS is not an ICANN policy - this is a new feature that we may agree this is outside the scope of what we're doing here. Outcome: PCRT comments 3, 5, 8, 11 regarding access to registration data for the purpose of UDRP/URS filing will be preserved for the access discussion in Phase 2 - at which point the EPDP Team can decide if the concern should be addressed by the EPDP Team/how to address the concern if the Team agrees the concern is appropriately within scope. c. Recommendation #18 - Data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers (incl. Question #4) The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org must enter into data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers in which, amongst other items, the data retention period is specifically addressed, as this will affect the ability to have publicly available decisions. Themes seem to be - eliminating clause at the end as this will affect publicly-available decisions. Another comment is eliminating recommendation as this seems to be elimination of URS and UDRP. Small Team Feedback: Once we get to the stage of a decision, the information relating to the registrant is part and parcel of that decision. To the extent there are comments relating to access, we have already disposed of those. To the extent that we would be amending URS or UDRP procedures, that is not our job. Where stakeholder groups are saying the same thing, that is compelling. Discuss the issue raised by the Forum and George K. regarding decisions being made public. If you have DPA b/w ICANN and Providers, does this necessarily mean the decisions would not be public? Why is George concerned that the decision won't be public? The biggest question we need to look at: who are we trying to deal with. The publication of the decision is by the provider - this is out of scope for us. What we need to figure out more - why are we providing the data to the provider in the first place. In these questions by Tucows, Forum, George - we are missing a key concept - who is the controller? Here, it is the URS/UDRP provider - that is a matter of the contract b/w ICANN and the URS Provider. This is talking about an agreement b/w ICANN and providers. It looks like the comments are meant to cover other issues that may come up in the DPA. Consider deleting the text after data retention period. The whole issue is whether decisions are public or not is not a WHOIS issue - this is an issue of how providers do their work. This seems to imply that WHOIS has a bearing on publicly-available decisions. This simply notes ICANN has to enter into data processing agreements. Given that the issue of publicly-available decisions and redaction is a concern of many commenters, I suggest we leave it as drafted. As this recommendation is, we’re giving a suggestion – probably keep in mind decisions, so this is not a major issue to leave it in. Outcome - Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the EPDP small team has decided to remove the last clause from Rec. 18 (noting it is out of scope). d. Recommendation #22 - Impact on other policies EPDP Team Preliminary Rec #22. The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements: • Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy • Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS • Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy • WHOIS Data Reminder Policy • Transfer Policy • Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules Should we include the PPSAI policy, AWIP, and ERRP? >From the comments and text, better to postpone this recommendation and possibly add to final report as we are still evolving and shouldn’t have a laundry list of policies that need to be updated that are not there. Addition of the PPSAI policy request – this is something that we need to be clear about, so this should be reviewed within the plenary. This recommendation should stay in the books and in the Final Report, but it shouldn’t be finalized right now as the team is still working. Could we recommend to the larger group that the part re: admin/tech be eliminated at this time? Proposed outcome: this team discussed removing the clause at the end “as a number of these” and this group discussed and generally supported the inclusion of PPSAI Is this work for an implementation review team, or is this work for the GNSO? e. Recommendation #6 - Escrow Providers EPDP Team Preliminary Rec #6: 1. The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org enter into legally-compliant data processing agreements with the data escrow providers. 2. The EPDP Team recommends updates to the contractual requirements for registries and registrars to transfer data that they process to the data escrow provider to ensure consistency with the data elements workbooks that analyze the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data. 3. The data elements workbook that analyzes the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data Registration Data contains the specifically-identified data elements the EPDP Team recommends be transferred by Registries and Registrars to data escrow providers (see Annex D). These data elements are: <see Initial Report>. One major issue is lack of in-depth review of data elements workbooks. We may consider putting this onto the face-to-face agenda. What is the best way to do this? Is there a way to use a small team, for example? Perhaps allocate homework to individuals – go through the easy ones first. Task: did we learn anything new from the comments? No – these are the predictable positions we have heard from the stakeholder groups all along. We discussed this in BCN, but we did not reach an agreement. There doesn’t seem to be much new in the public comment. Regarding what information is provided to the data escrow provider – BC recommended all data except specific TLD data should be provided to the escrow provider. This could come out of the data mapping Alan G discussed. Most people agree data escrow that all data or minimal data set is copied. If we come to the agreement that which data is necessary for the processing activity, then there is not a problem with the recommendation. Where we are: The exercise of determining the data flows and specific data set are necessary. Recommendation 6 is agreed to by everyone, but the specific data set needs to be agreed to by the EPDP Team. Other proposed edits to the language can be assessed following plenary review of the data set. f. Recommendation #12 - Reasonable access g. Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data h. Recommendation #17 - Input from RPM PDP WG to inform subsequent access discussion EPDP Team Preliminary Rec #17. The EPDP Team requests that when the EPDP Team commences its deliberations on a standardized access framework, a representative of the RPMs PDP WG shall provide an update on the current status of deliberations so that the EPDP Team may determine if/how the WG’s recommendations may affect consideration of the URS and UDRP in the context of the standardized access framework deliberations. Potential items for discussion – UDRP providers should be included in this consultation, is this an action item rather than a policy recommendation? This is an action item and not a policy recommendation. Suggestion – delete this as a recommendation but include as an action item in Phase 2 of the work. If WIPO would like to be included on the EPDP Team, this needs to go to the GNSO Council. Where is the appropriate place for this? Perhaps see how this could potentially be included in the Final Report, but not specifically as a policy recommendation. Consider including this in the body of the Final Report, but not include as a specific policy recommendation.

1 0

Small Team B Meeting #1 - Notes and Action Items
by Marika Konings Jan. 8, 2019

Jan. 8, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s small team B meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Small Team B Meeting #1 Thursday, 8 January 2019 Notes and Action Items Small Team B Participants: * James Bladel (Sarah Wyld - alternate) (RrSG) * Hadia El Miniawi (ALAC) * Amr Elsadr & Ayden Férdeline (NCSG) * Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC) * Steve DelBianco (BC) * Marc Anderson & Kristina Rosette (RySG) * Thomas Rickert (ISPCP) * Brian King (IPC) * Benedict Addis (SSAC) * Leon Sanchez (ICANN Board Liaison) * Trang Nguyen (ICANN Org Liaison -GDD) * Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison) Proposed approach to address concerns expressed (for review by EPDP Team): * For Purpose 3: Proposed rewording ‘Enable communication with the Registered Name Holder on matters relating to the Registered Name’. * For Recommendation #19: No change or updates needed. Actions Items: Action item #1: Small team to further consider, possibly in consultation with their respective groups, if/how recommendation #16 should be modified to address concern. Steve, Brian, James and Kristina specifically requested to look at this jointly and see if they can come back with a proposed path forward by Thursday's meeting. Action item #2: Kristina to put together a chart that sets out the specific requested changes in relation to purpose 5 with the objective to identify a potential compromise. Come back to this on Thursday. Action item #3: Staff will update the discussion tables with the proposed responses to the comments based on the discussion today for small team B review. Action item #4: Small team members are expected to update their colleagues on the progress and deliberations of today’s small team B meeting. Action item #5: Small team members are to review the PCRTs and discussion tables for the remaining topics and flag, if possible, prior to the meeting which comments require further discussion. 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. 2. Introduction * See message that was circulated yesterday with the proposed approach * Some discussion on the list in relation to the approach - appreciate all input. All focused on moving forward. * Objective is to complete the work within the time allocated. * Small team approach is focused on multiplying our efforts, but significant time will need to be devoted by everyone in preparation for the F2F meeting. * Need to find a way to confirm and/or reconsider if deemed necessary conclusions in the Initial Report. * Collective responsibility of EPDP Team to review and consider input received and deliver Final Report. * Encourage to take the task of review of comments as a group task and look beyond comments that have been submitted by respective groups and consider the bigger picture. * Request to give this approach a try - leadership will review after this meeting and course correct, if needed. * CPH is of the view that this will overcomplicate the process and will add additional time and wants to formally note it objection. Noted by leadership and appreciate willingness to continue. a. Purpose 3 - Enable communication with RNH * 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? * Concerns may be addressed by simple edits? Could frame things more briefly (e.g. enable communication with RNH of issues with a Registered Name). This would simplify and address the concerns raised (e.g. delegated agents do not need to be called out as if acting on RNH they would be covered). However, there may be situations where the RNH is not the direct user, for example where web-site is used by contract (enable communication with RNH or delegated agents with a Registered Name). * How to balance specificity with making sure no exclusions? Would it be easier to just add 'legal' and be specific? Issues / matters relating to the registered domain name would pass muster re specificity. * People could assume that anything not called out is excluded here - that should be avoided. Original references to technical and administrative issues were derived from existing admin / tech contact, there is no such contact currently for legal so better to be general so all issues in relation to domain name registration are covered. * EPDP Team could run this by external counsel to see if they raise any issues with being less specific. * RySG does not consider it appropriate to include a reference to delegated agent - not clear if this is appropriate under GDPR. * Same purpose would apply to the delegated agent, if the RNH is legally allowed to do so. * Notification is understood to be covered as part of communication. * Comment in relation to 'billing' - not considered within scope of processing data as an ICANN purpose, is part of registrar purpose. * Deletion of comment - not supported as this purpose is needed to allow for communication, is not covered by purpose 1. * ALAC initially expressed concern about removing delegated agent - but later stated with regard to purpose 3 their agreement on removing the delegated agent with the understanding that it goes without saying the purpose applies to the designated agent and that this has nothing to do with removing or keeping second contacts. Ability to delegate is important, but may not need to be explicitly listed here. This is a purpose for the processing of registration data, this is not about whether or not a RNH can or cannot delegate his/her responsibilities. * Does limiting it to issues with a Registered Name mean that it could involve issues that are outside of ICANN's scope? Proposed approach to address concerns expressed (for review by EPDP Team) in relation to Purpose 3: * Proposed rewording to put forward to EPDP Team for consideration: Enable communication with the Registered Name Holder on matters relating to the Registered Name. b. Recommendation #16 - Instructions for RPM PDP WG * 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? * Concerns are addressed by the recommendation, apart from possibly the first one which was already discussed in the context of this recommendation (no consensus to include it in the recommendation). Proposal to acknowledge commenters and note that these concerns will be addressed by the RPM WG once the Council has instructed that effort to focus on these issues. * Recommendations should also ask to look at disclosure for access under 'reasonable' access category. (BC, IPC, Microsoft). The request is actually to add another recommendation directing a question to the RPM WG to request disclosure when there is a demonstrable connection between the registrant pre-filing. Note that this has been raised previously and was considered. Proposed additional recommendation: EPDP Team also recommends that the GNSO Council instructs the review of all RPMs PDP WG to consider, as part of its deliberations, whether there is a need to develop policy around pre-filing registrant disclosure requests for of a limited number of registrants when there is a good faith belief that the registrants are acting in bad faith and there is an demonstrable connection between the registrants. * For the same reasons that RySG did not support turning this into a recommendation or a purpose, it should not be either passed on to another effort. * Considered extensively but general concern that it is punting a small hole in a damn. As long as referral is not overly prescriptive, it may be possible to consider this, with as little as possible presumption about the outcome. Agreement with that notion. * Would also need to consider what safeguards would need to be put in place to protect the RNH. * Need to review data elements table in relation to disclosure as it currently only reflects that it is provided to DRP and does not factor in disclosure to complainant. Those discussions may better inform this issue. * Groups to consider this with their respective groups, factoring in the notes of today's meeting, and aim to come back by Thursday with a possible path forward. * Note that there is support for recommendation #16 as written. Action item #1: Small team to further consider, possibly in consultation with their respective groups, if/how recommendation should be modified to address concern. Steve, Brian, James and Kristina specifically requested to look at this jointly and see if they can come back with a proposed path forward by Thursday's meeting. c. Recommendation #19 - Transfer Policy * 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? * This concern is being addressed by tech op groups in the GNSO - note this to the commenter in the response. See https://bestpractice.domains/ and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MfbvbhXnT1aA4iQfxcVoNyLKJb3trMAwJdBKK2r…. Proposed approach to address concerns expressed (for review by EPDP Team) in relation Recommendation #19: * No change or updates needed. d. Purpose 5 - Handling Contractual Compliance * 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? * First concern - broader issue that has been discussed and still under discussion. Take closer look at recommendation #13 and to see the extent to which further refinement would be needed here. Any transfer of data requires some type of agreement. * Second concern - there are a number of different proposals / revisions. Would be helpful to look at this a bit more closely at edits provided and see if/how these can be brought together. For example, RySG has suggested separating out handling, monitoring, audits and complaints submitted. * Third concern - embodied within GDPR complies * Fourth concern - may need some further investigation. Some suggested this should be considered. * Fifth concern - Team is of the view that this is clearly a separate purpose. Action item #2: Kristina to put together a chart that sets out the specific requested changes in relation to purpose 5 with the objective to identify a potential compromise. Come back to this on Thursday. e. Recommendation #10 - Email communication * 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? * Issues at hand seem to be: What technical service, run by whom and whether mandatory or not? Mandatory in two dimensions: for registrar and also for registrant. Consider structuring discussion along those lines. * Some consider web-form not good enough - unredacted email is important, some flag that communications should not have to go through the registrar channel. Web-form is not a good solution for anyone as it would also require additional work/effort on the registrar side. Registrars cannot agree to publicly disclose the email address in order to facilitate this communication. * In relation to no confirmation from web-form, if this is a requirement, compliance could enforce if it is not delivered * Email address disclosure could result in sharing personal information publicly. * Some comments also want email address as an identifier, to (for example) correlate malicious activity. May need to acknowledge that an email address has different functions but recognize that identification is not part of this purpose, need to focus on the communication mechanism. * Come back to this on Thursday -in the meantime, small team to consider how different concerns can be addressed. If no resolution is found, it may have to be brought to the plenary for consideration. Next steps Action item #3: Staff will update the discussion tables with the proposed responses to the comments based on the discussion today for small team B review. Action item #4: Small team members are expected to update their colleagues on the progress and deliberations of today’s small team B meeting. Action item #5: small team members are to review the PCRTs and discussion tables for the remaining topics and flag, if possible, prior to the meeting which comments require further discussion. 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

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

Jan. 8, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the discussion summary tables that will be displayed during today’ small team A and B meetings. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

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

Jan. 8, 2019

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

2 1

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

Jan. 8, 2019

Kristina, one aspect of your message confuses me. You make reference to meeting on Tuesdays and Thursdays with work does in between. By my reckoning, we have ONE Tuesday (which started 23 minutes ago in my time zone) and ONE Thursday before our F@F meeting in Toronto. Alan At 07/01/2019 03:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B call on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/rds-leadership/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zIsWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A call on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-sc-budget/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

** This meeting has been cancelled due to Small Team A and B replacing it with different join information (updated join information to be sent out shortly). Please remember to remove this from your calendars. Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

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

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

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

2 1

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

Jan. 7, 2019

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

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

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

Jan. 7, 2019

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

5 7

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Stephanie Perrin Jan. 6, 2019

Jan. 6, 2019

Here is the link to the Charter Holly, see pages 11-14. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec… Cheers Stephanie On 2019-01-05 22:24, Holly Raiche wrote: Hi Stephanie Please clarify what you mean by ‘alternates are actually alternates’. The ALAC designated 4 people for the EPDP from the beginning - and all four names were supplied. Two would be the regular attendees (Alan and Hadia) and another two (myself and Seun) would follow the processes of the group, without actually attending meetings - but all were seen - at least from ALAC’s view - as members. This works well when the meetings are plenary. But when the meetings are split into three different discussions, then having two of our original four as ‘members' no longer works since - by your statement - those of us who are ‘alternates’ would not be seen as members, leaving one third of the meetings without the agreed representative from each group. So please clarify Holly On Jan 6, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi Kurt, I think the NCSG is perfectly happy with 3 groups. What Ayden is trying to explain here is that we should preserve the SG balance that the GNSO Council agreed to in the Charter. That was to reflect the same balance as exists in the Council. SGs are SGs, constituencies are constituencies as you well know. NCSG is slightly anomalous in that we allow non-affiliated NCSG members to join the SG as a whole. Re the issue of having alternates...what we are insisting on here is that alternates are actually alternates, replacing full members when they are not there....not a way of adding members. I hope this clarifies. If some constituencies object to this approach because they are one person short of the requisite 3 members necessary to staff all three small teams, and they do not trust the other folks in their SG to represent their interests, I would suggest that we go with two groups. I am merely jumping in here as the NCSG Chair to help clarify, I will consult the whole team to make sure this is the consensus position of our SG....but since I was our rep on the Charter drafting team at the GNSO Council, I am pretty aware of how strongly we feel about the need to maintain GNSO Council structure in this particular PDP. I would add that any proposals from the small groups will have to be debated in the group as a whole, so I am not sure how much time we are saving here. Kind regards. Stephanie On 2019-01-05 19:51, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Ayden: That is the rub isn’t it? I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again. I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently, so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase our capacity even more. One assumption I made was that I don’t think we can create small teams without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates, that would restrict us to two groups. I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council. I don’t know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be received in time for meetings in three days' time. I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group. It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach. Let me know your position on it. Thanks and best regards, Kurt On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com><mailto:icann@ferdeline.com> wrote: Hi Kurt, Thank you for putting forward this proposal. I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal, the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members and the CSG nine members in the process which follows. As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date. I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com><mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. Thanks and best regards, Kurt Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(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

EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 6, 2019

Jan. 6, 2019

Hi Everyone: The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. Thanks and best regards, Kurt

2 2

Two errors in the ALAC Initial Report submission
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 4, 2019

Jan. 4, 2019

One of the eagle-eyed ALAC members has caught two errors in the ALAC submission which unfortunately have the effect of reversing the meaning. Question 45: Without the Admin fields, there is the potential for a registration record having telephone or email contact details for the entity responsible for the registration. should read Without the Admin fields, there is the potential for a registration record NOT having telephone or email contact details for the entity responsible for the registration. Question 87: (this one will hopefully be recognized as an error and not ignorance) GDPR only applies to Legal Persons. should read GDPR only applies to Natural Persons. Alan

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Thursday, 03 January 2019
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 4, 2019

Jan. 4, 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 Thursday, 03 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-Aj_BQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-03jan19… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9c1ehjl4s4/<https://participate.icann.org/p9c1ehjl4s4/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=42cbcfdcadb04b8a…> ** 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

Notes and action items from EPDP Team Meeting #37
by Marika Konings Jan. 3, 2019

Jan. 3, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika =================== EPDP Team Meeting #37 Thursday, 3 January 2019 Notes and Action Items High-level Notes/Actions: Action item #1: EPDP Team to review all public comments to the Initial Report using the Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT). The Google form is available for comment review also. The agenda for each meeting will indicate which recommendations will be reviewed for each meeting but please review all comments for Recommendation 1 (all purposes) now. Action item #2: EPDP Team to notify staff support of any unintentional errors as they appear in the PCRTs. Action item #3: Staff support team to update PCRT with notes and agreed upon actions by EPDP Team in review of the comments to Recommendation 1, Purpose 1. Action item #4: RySG reps to prepare an explanation to the rationale (without editing the input received) separating out Purpose 1 into two parts. Action item #5: Staff support team to send latest version of the workbooks to RySG reps for reference in preparation for creating two workbooks to match the RySG comment. Action item #6: Leadership team to give further consideration to whether small teams could accelerate review of proposed edits. Action Item #7: Entire team to consider if there is another place in the report for proposed change #4. Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: None Notes & Action items These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates * Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect * Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. * Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Make sure to have https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Public+Comment+Review+Tool readily available during the meeting. This page contains the public comment review tool for all purposes and recommendations. a. Update from legal committee * Second meeting took place yesterday. Further reviewed process for refining questions as well as procurement process with focus on how to avoid conflicts. Three small teams will work on refining the questions outlined in the Initial Report. Next legal committee meeting will take place next Wednesday. b. Review of outstanding action items - see https://community.icann.org/x/NwSNBQ c. Other updates, if applicable 3. Public Comments on the Initial Report (85 minutes) a. High level overview of input received (10 minutes) (see https://community.icann.org/x/R4cWBg) * Obligation for EPDP Team to review and consider all input received. EPDP Team is expected to document how input has been dealt with, even if it is decided that no change is made as a result of the comment. * Need to consider how to document this consideration - PCRT is expected to aid with that. * Agendas for upcoming meetings will include links to the relevant PCRTs that are expected to have been reviewed. Action item #1: EPDP Team to review all public comments to the Initial Report using the Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT). The Google form is available for comment review also. The agenda for each meeting will indicate which recommendations will be reviewed for each meeting but please review all comments for Recommendation 1 (all purposes) now. b. Review and discuss proposed approach for review of public comments (15 minutes) (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001131.html) * See proposed approach circulated * Want to focus on rationale and new thinking - not focus attention on arguments that have already been made and considered. * Need to consider time available and how to best use that time. * Idea for this call would be to focus on purpose 1 and 3 to ease into the process as there appears to be general support for these purposes. * Consider categorization as proposed by Milton on the mailing list: 1. those which are clearly consensual (1, 3, 4,) 2. those which seem to be easily amendable to attain consensus (5, 6) 3. those which have serious opposition and may need to be discarded or greatly modified. EPDP Team should first agree on a categorization of all purposes and where they belong in these categories. * Need to avoid wordsmithing on a call - try to focus on what are themes and have a small team working on those edits that enjoy general support. * Chart in PCRT provides an illustration of types of comments received, however it cannot be taken as a perfect delineation of support across the group as all commenters have been 'counted' individually. Yellow and red parts may need to be the focus areas for EPDP. Could serve as an indicator, but this is not a numbers game as input is not necessarily representative of different interests / parties affected. Nevertheless, still important to hear and listen to other voices. Focus on where same point is made by different stakeholders across the divides. Action item #2: EPDP Team to notify staff support of any unintentional errors as they appear in the PCRTs. c. Commence review of public comments (60 minutes): Purpose 1 – Establish rights of Registered Name Holder (see PCRT) Purpose 3 – Enable communication with Registered Name Holder (see PCRT) * Purpose 1 - see PCRT as well as overview of proposed changes. * Consider how to deliberate on these changes - one by one, or in a group? Could ask for a show of hands to determine support or lack thereof. * Should the word 'activate' be replaced by 'activating a domain name registration'? Note that activate appears 18 times in the Registry and Registrar Agreements. Concern #2 considered addressed. * Proposed change #1 - is there any support for further discussing this proposed change? Should transfer and recovery be added or is this already covered by the reference to the term 'use'? Not necessary to achieve the objective of the purpose. Transfer and Recovery are different data processing steps that described in other purposes, Post-recovery consensus policy may need to be reviewed as follow up work - consider flagging that. You can allocate a domain name and decide not to activate it. You can also activate a domain name and not have a web-page, this is only one function. Agreement that proposed edits are not considered necessary as it is already considered covered by the existing language. * Proposed change #2 - adding obligations here is trying to convert this purpose into something else as it would bring in 3rd party obligations. If considered, it should be responsibilities, instead of obligations. Need to keep clear boundaries between purpose 1 and 2. Obligations are already covered in other purposes. Rationale provided conflates this purpose with other purposes. Rationale is to also reflect responsibilities a domain name registrant has in relation to a domain name registration, not only its rights. Third party access comes from other purposes, this is a registrant specific purpose - for example, updating of registrant data to maintain accurate data. Rights and responsibilities of registrant are framed in the context of responsibilities towards registrars, registries and ICANN. If responsibilities is added, it needs to be made to be very clear to whom these responsibilities are. Intro (subject to registry and registrar terms, conditions, policies and ICANN Consensus Policies) already covers any such obligations. Would legal basis change as a result of rewording the purpose? Proposal to not accept this change for now as there is not sufficient support for making this change. Leave as is. May come back at a later stage to see if opinions have changed as further changes may be made. * Proposed change #3 - no support for discussing this proposed change. The team thought that the suggested rewording succinctly captures a reason for collecting data but, on-balance, preferred the detail included in the bullets of the previously agreed-upon Purpose 1. Already captured by the existing wording. * Proposed change #4 - proposed as a fourth bullet. Comment is based on a policy objective not a data collection / purpose. Is this about zone file access? Not clear how processing domain name registration relates to domain name availability. Does not belong on purpose 1. Put in meeting notes to think about this recommendation as consideration is given to other purposes and comments to see if it belongs somewhere else. Also consider at the end whether issues are caused as a result of the policy recommendation. Is this out of scope for the EPDP Team? Rationale provided by commenter: "It is important to ensure the availability of unregistered names to natural and artificial persons without the availability status being masked in the middle paving way for speculative transactions by intermediaries which may not always be fair. This purpose is added to ensure fairness in the availability of Domain Names to natural and artificial persons; It is acknowledged that some names that are beyond the purview of Trade Marks are desirable names by many, hence have a premium value. To ensure fairness and transparency of opportunities for registering premium names by existing and new processes between ICANN and Registries. * Consider asking legal counsel for guidance on how to draft purposes." Up to proponents to bring this up at appropriate time - no specific action for the EPDP Team at this point in time. * Proposed change #5 - may be helpful to see the detailed data processing steps. Main reasoning related to transfer of data that is required for some registries and not others, for activating very little transfer of personal data is needed, while second purpose addresses those that do require transfer of additional data. Action item #3: Staff support team to update PCRT with notes and agreed upon actions by EPDP Team in review of the comments to Recommendation 1, Purpose 1. Action item #4: RySG reps to prepare an explanation to the rationale (without editing the input received) separating out Purpose 1 into two parts. Action item #5: Staff support team to send latest version of the workbooks to RySG reps for reference in preparation for creating two workbooks to match the RySG comment. Action item #6: Leadership team to give further consideration to whether small teams could accelerate review of proposed edits. Action Item #7: Entire team to consider if there is another place in the report for proposed change #4. 4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. Preparations for F2F meeting (16-18 January) * Everyone should have made their arrangements by now - in case of questions, please contact gnso-secs(a)icann.org. * CBI has been contracted to facilitate and mediate the meeting. Leadership team and staff support will be meeting with CBI shortly to prepare for and plan the meeting. Further details to follow shortly. b. Decision-making methodologies / Consensus call process * As the EPDP Team moves towards a Final Report on the Temporary Specification, a formal consensus call will need to be conducted on the different recommendations. The EPDP Team should familiarize itself with the decision-making methodology as outlined in the EPDP Team Charter. The leadership team will develop further details as to how the consensus calls are expected to be conducted. c. Final Report development * Unless there are any objections, the staff support team is happy to start working on transforming the Initial Report into a Final Report by making the necessary administrative updates, followed by any updates that are the result of the EPDP Team’s review of the comments received or prior agreements. Any such changes will be tracked in redline to facilitate review. d. Timeline * The EPDP Team is still working towards the existing deadline of delivery of a Final Report on the Temporary Specification by 1 February. Progress is very much dependent on the F2F meeting. 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, 8 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 3, 2019

Jan. 3, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #37 Thursday 3 January at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 3, 2019

Jan. 3, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Best wishes for 2019! Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 3 January at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ========== EPDP Meeting #37 Agenda Thursday, 3 January 2018 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Update from legal committee * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Public Comments on the Initial Report (85 minutes) * High level overview of input received (10 minutes) (see https://community.icann.org/x/R4cWBg) * Review and discuss proposed approach for review of public comments (15 minutes) (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001131.html) * Commence review of public comments (60 minutes): * Purpose 1 – Establish rights of Registered Name Holder (see PCRT<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102139731/gnso-EPDP-pcrt-I…>) * Purpose 3 – Enable communication with Registered Name Holder (see PCRT<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102139731/gnso-EPDP-pcrt-I…>) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * Preparations for F2F meeting (16-18 January) * Decision-making methodologies / Consensus call process * Final Report development * Timeline 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, 8 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…>.

6 6

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #37 Thursday 3 January at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 3, 2019

Jan. 3, 2019

Alan, all, Please find attached the mind map that provides an overview of the issues that are expected to be addressed in ‘phase 2’ of the EPDP Team’s work, per the EPDP Team’s charter. The Final Report referred to in the agenda refers to the Final Report referenced in the EPDP Team’s charter that is to be produced following the review of the public comments received on the Initial Report ‘on the items related to the Temporary Specification (excluding the Annex)’. The Charter foresees a second Final Report (and Initial Report) that specifically focuses on the issues that are outlined in the mind map. I hope this clarifies that each phase has its own Initial Report and Final Report which focuses on the specific issues per the direction of the EPDP Team Charter. To avoid further confusion, the group could consider referring to the Final Report for phase 1 (Temporary Specification) and Initial & Final Report for phase 2 (System for Standardized Access and Annex issues)? Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 23:49 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #37 Thursday 3 January at 14.00 UTC I have a question regarding the nomenclature "Next steps to get to Final Report". We have all along been talking about issues that are within our mandate but do not need to be done and implemented by the magic date in May 2019. How does this fit with the concept of a "FINAL Report"? - Will we address these other issues in the FINAL Final Report Or Final Report #2? - Has the "let's defer it till later" been a code phrase for we are never going to do it? These other issues are within our scope in the charter but do not seem to have been contemplated in identifying the deliverables. Alan At 02/01/2019 10:58 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear EPDP Team, Best wishes for 2019! Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 3 January at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ========== EPDP Meeting #37 Agenda Thursday, 3 January 2018 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Update from legal committee * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Public Comments on the Initial Report (85 minutes) * High level overview of input received (10 minutes) (see https://community.icann.org/x/R4cWBg) * Review and discuss proposed approach for review of public comments (15 minutes) (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001131.html ) * Commence review of public comments (60 minutes): * Purpose 1 – EEstablish rights of Registered Name Holder (see PCRT<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102139731/gnso-EPDP-pcrt-I…>) * Purpose 3 – Enable communication with Registerred Name Holder (see PCRT<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102139731/gnso-EPDP-pcrt-I…>) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * Preparations for F2F meeting (16-18 January) * Decision-making methodologies / Consensus call process * Final Report development * Timeline 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, 8 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 Corporationn 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…>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

Public Comment review and Thursday meeting agenda
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 2, 2019

Jan. 2, 2019

Hi Everyone: Welcome back. During the break, you will see that the Support Team has worked through and summarized the comments to the Initial Report using the standard format. We have also identified an approach to the public comment review that is outlined in the attached document. It includes prep materials for this Thursday’s meeting - and identifies the path for the next few meetings after that. Please read and consider it carefully, provide any guidance you might have, and prepare for the Thursday meeting. Let us know if you have questions or comments. Best regards, Kurt & Rafik

4 5

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Thursday, 03 January 2019
by Julie Bisland Jan. 2, 2019

Jan. 2, 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/-Aj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0