January 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Kurt Pritz 07 Jan '19

07 Jan '19

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 06 Jan '19

06 Jan '19

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 06 Jan '19

06 Jan '19

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 04 Jan '19

04 Jan '19

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 04 Jan '19

04 Jan '19

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 03 Jan '19

03 Jan '19

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 03 Jan '19

03 Jan '19

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 03 Jan '19

03 Jan '19

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 03 Jan '19

03 Jan '19

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 02 Jan '19

02 Jan '19

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