January 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

FW: [Ext] Re: [Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team] EPDP-P2 Welcome Cocktail
by Terri Agnew Jan. 26, 2020

Jan. 26, 2020

Sent on behalf of Chris Disspain ** All, Becky and I will be an apology for tonight’s event as we will still be at board workshop sessions. We look forward to catching up with yo tomorrow, and the next day and the next….. Cheers, CD On 26 Jan 2020, at 11:48, ICANN Policy Calendar <PolicyCalendar(a)icann.org<mailto:PolicyCalendar@icann.org>> wrote: Event: EPDP-P2 F2F Welcome Cocktail Date/time: Sunday, 26 January 2020 18:00-19:30 Pacific Time Location: DoubleTree Hotel Room: Ballroom Terrace (3rd floor) <Mail Attachment.ics>_______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team mailing list Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

CPH input on Face to Face planning
by Anderson, Marc Jan. 26, 2020

Jan. 26, 2020

Janis and leadership team, and behalf of the CPH members, I'm sending our input for the Face to Face planning. Thank you, Marc CPH Input for Face to Face planning: * Do NOT waste plenary time wordsmithing language. At previous face to face meetings there has been a tendency to spend a lot of time trying to tweak language on the fly to make it acceptable to all groups. If changes are needed to language, it is a better use of time to do so during a break out or in small groups. * Don't turn the F2F into a 3 day long plenary call sitting around a table. We should take advantage of being in one location to the greatest extent possible, maximizing breakout sessions, small group discussions and team caucuses. Staff should understand what additional facilities are available for having small group discussions. * Allow time to caucus among groups... and across groups. This is especially true when groups are being asked to agree to a proposal or come up with a compromise to differing positions. * Use Zoom to manage the queue! At previous face to face meetings Zoom hasn't been used to manage the queue inevitably causing confusion and issues. We are all used to using Zoom, let's stick with that for queue management.

6 6

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / 27-29 January 2020 F2F meeting
by Julie Bisland Jan. 24, 2020

Jan. 24, 2020

Dear all, Observers can follow the EPDP-P2 F2F meeting taking place on 27-29 January 2020 in Los Angeles, California via the audio cast. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WgVxBw As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Meeting Audio Cast (for 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> If needed, an option to join via telephone has been added for this meeting. **Join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=D…> Enter passcode on telephone: 7349 Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and action items from EPDP Meeting #41 - 23 Jan 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 24, 2020

Jan. 24, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team Meeting. For all those attending: safe travels to the F2F meeting, and see you soon! Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. EPDP Support Staff to send Legal Q2, which has been approved by the plenary team, to B&B for its review. 2. EPDP Team to review the GAC proposal on accreditation of public authorities in advance of the F2F meeting. 3. EPDP Leadership and Support Staff to consider today's discussion and prepare an agenda for the F2F meeting to be distributed on Sunday, 26 January. 4. EPDP Team to submit additional feedback on today's discussion and the EPDP Leadership-proposed chameleon model by 14:00 UTC on Sunday, 26 January. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee Following this call, a document which includes the rationale for posing each question will be provided. Regarding Reverse Look-ups, the legal committee thought the question was still relevant as the question for reverse look-ups as there was a proposal to prohibit reverse look-ups. The path forward for this – Thomas raised a point of order whether this is in scope, and it is the Chair’s authority to rule on that. Alternatively, the Team could remove the bracketed language. Legal Committee recommends the legal questions should be sent out. Re: legal vs. natural questions, NCSG noted the outstanding policy question should be answered before legal questions are pursued. The LC believes that in order for ICANN to carry out the feasibility exercise, the questions would be helpful to inform this exercise. The LC is seeking clarification of the existing legal advice. Territorial scope – B&B provided legal guidance on the territorial scope of GDPR and the advice and updated EPDB guidance could be relevant here. The LC believes given the Board’s note re: geographic differentiation, the implications of the two events would be helpful. WHOIS accuracy – follow-up clarification questions on B&B’s previous advice re: relevant parties – who may be included in this with respect to GDPR roles. LC also agreed it would be helpful to have practical guidance with respect to this. Re: reverse look-ups, there is no agreement on this particular topic, so it would be wise to indicate that on that particular topic, there is no agreement within the Team, so the Team is seeking community feedback on this point. Regarding reverse look-ups, the Initial Report or Final Report should remove all references to reverse look-ups. If the Team believes this should be dealt with at some point, it could flag it for a future PDP. Question utility on putting reverse look-ups out for public comment – agree that this is out of scope, so the Team is not endorsing or prohibiting it May be foolish to NOT get legal advice on this now Disagree that just b/c B&B is available means the Team should ask advice There is no objection to Q2. There is no consensus re: reverse look-ups. Therefore, the Team will not send the question regarding reverse look-ups. Object to territorial scope and the legal vs. natural question Agreement to send Q2. The other questions need further discussion with the Legal Committee. Accuracy question – NCSG reads this as accuracy is a right of the data subject Action: EPDP Support Staff to send Q2 to B&B for its review. b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? The EC has been helping ICANN facilitate a meeting with the Belgian DPA – was hoping to have this meeting before the F2F, but this has not happened. EC believes it would be useful to have a meeting with the Belgian DPA There is no set date yet for this meeting, but trying to set meeting as early as possible in February Synopsis: work is ongoing, and there is no update yet, but hoping for an update in the near future 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview Attempt from Leadership and Staff to review the CPH proposal and reactions to it and the small team’s input and come forward with a proposal Attempt to add flexibility and meaningful SLAs Took the recommendations in the draft Initial Report and adding additional specificity The basics of the model – the requestor submits a disclosure request to the central gateway (performed or overseen by ICANN org) – the central gateway would determine if the request meets the criteria for an automated response or if it needs to go to the CP for review There is an assumption that at the outset bucket 4 would be substantially larger than what is in bucket 5, but through experience gained or additional legal guidance, more requests may shift to bucket 5 Another new concept introduced in the hybrid-hybrid model is the steering committee – the underlying idea is should there be a mechanism that allows for the evolution over time without requiring a new PDP each time– maybe there is not, but this is an initial proposal for discussion. This is similar to the CSC to IANA-PTI to follow SLAs and the performance of PTI and enhance these over time – this is more used as a concept – is this necessary or is there a way that the evolutionary model could be captured? Went through preliminary recommendations in the latest version of the Initial Report – the comments raised have been removed for ease of reading, but those comments will be dealt with via the issues list There are now two preliminary recommendations about automated disclosure requests to accommodate the two branches in the previous diagram SLAs have been included – is there a way to help predict what will come in Some of the other changes deal with who would be dealing with what In reference to the steering committee, this is an initial proposal – this is not intended to circumvent policy rules – it is trying to find a compromise solution from the various proposals. b) EPDP Team reactions Having a roadmap around how to allow future automation will be helpful. Maybe a function or a group can evolve this as more legal certainty is gained. Strongly support the model – getting something close to what the different group could support. The document references shifting liability – we should not be talking about shifting liability. Strongly support the work of standing committee, but it should not be making policy decisions. There should not be a jointly-appointed rep for NCSG/ALAC. Under current model, the only way to create contractual obligations on CPs is through a PDP. This group would not be wading into policy waters, only on implementation automation – this group cannot self-determine what is a policy question – that needs to go somewhere else like the GNSO Council. Looking at the broader view from groups are critical of the ICANN model, this seems to show that the PDP is not fit for purpose. This is the wrong approach – the right approach would be to fix the PDP. If the proposal is for a group outside of the PDP that could impact the contract, that is too big of a loophole/wildcard/variable for contracted parties to accept. Critics of the MSM will pounce on this as evidence that the MSM is not working. Standing PDP could be an alternative to a standing committee Do not support an external group that is designed to exclude non-commercial users from decision-making. The CSC is not an appropriate precedent. Question the need for evolution – the EPDP Team can come up with an automated model for certain disclosures – there can be evolution of procedures and technologies, and there can be oversight of that through the GNSO Council. Would need a Privacy Impact Committee to assess the impact of this New draft is closer to what can be published for initial comment – there are problematic elements but can discuss these at the F2F Need to call out automation where legally permissible and technically feasible. There could be standing IRT-like group to assist in the evolution Modeling a steering committee after the CSC is very good – the membership will be different b/c the customers and functions are very different Will the committee have the responsibility where the decision making for the disclosure request can be done through automated means? Have to discuss the safest way to get legal certainty is to get this approved as a code of conduct under the GDPR Action: EPDP Team to review the GAC proposal on accreditation of public authorities Action: Leadership and Staff will consider today’s discussion and prepare the F2F meeting in the best possible way Action: EPDP Team can prepare additional feedback to assist Leadership in developing next week’s F2F agenda c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

2 1

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/WAVxBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call, observers can join via audio cast, listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting
by Marika Konings Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

9 11

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / 27-29 January 2020 F2F meetings
by Terri Agnew Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Dear all, Observers can follow the EPDP-P2 F2F meeting taking place on 27-29 January 2020 in Los Angeles, California via the audio cast. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WgVxBw As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Meeting Audio Cast (for 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> If needed, an option to join via telephone has been added for this meeting. **Join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann Enter passcode on telephone: 7349 Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

NCSG Feedback on EPDP Phase 2/Batch 2 Legal Questions for Bird & Bird
by Amr Elsadr Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Hi, Apologies for not sending these in before the deadline, but attached is the NCSG Team feedback on the Batch 2 legal questions proposed by the Legal Committee to be sent to Bird & Bird. Thanks. Amr

4 4

Financial sustainability issues of the SSAD
by Janis Karklins Jan. 22, 2020

Jan. 22, 2020

Goran, I am writing you in my capacity of the Chair of the EPDP Phase 2 Team to seek input on financial sustainability issues if the SSAD. The EPDP Phase 2 Team is considering the financial sustainability of the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) currently being deliberated. This will likely involve ICANN managing or operating a centralized system to facilitate requests for disclosure of non-public gTLD registration data. The Team is contemplating how considerable cost implications would be to develop, operationalize and run such a System. The EPDP currently considers principles on which such a system may be based. Work is still in progress, but the Team is discussing principles such as: 1. The SSAD should operate on a cost-neutral basis. No party should operate or seek to operate this service as a for-profit service, as this would invite abuse and manipulation of the SSAD functions. 2. Costs to operate the SSAD should be borne by the *direct* beneficiaries of the service. The costs of SSAD should not be transferred to Data Subjects (Registrants), either directly via fees from ICANN or indirectly via fees to Contracted Parties who provide the SSAD with data and bear the legal risks of disclosures. In the absence of responses from both the EPDP letter to the Board, and to the Strawberry Team’s query as presented to the European Data Protection Board, the EPDP team is not in a position to consider a single model for the potential SSAD. Accepting that financial sustainability is a vital consideration for the initial report, and as we have not yet determined the model for the SSAD, we must therefore present the financial sustainability of each of the general model types so far postulated: - Fully Centralized (e.g. with ICANN at the core) - Centralized Accreditation and request portal, distributed decision-making, with final response via Centralized portal (e.g. CZDS). - Central Gateway, with distributed review and disclosure The Team understands that a cost analysis is difficult to conduct while the exact details of the SSAD are still being determined. We hope that looking at existing systems such as TMCH or CZDS might provide useful baselines and identify dependent assumptions that impact cost models. CZDS, for example, is itself a centralized system for access to data (in this case zone file data), sharing many similarities with the SSAD being contemplated. Equally, financial sustainability analysis of the UAM could provide same useful indications for Team’s deliberations. In order to understand if it is possible for the SSAD to adhere to these crucial principles, we are requesting ICANN Org’s help in understanding all the likely costs associated with both the development and the ongoing operation of the SSAD. Once we understand the anticipated costs, we would expect to propose a credentialing and transaction fee structure which would pay for the System and allow us to better understand the cost/benefit balance of the SSAD as a whole. Your input on financial sustainability issues will be highly appreciated. Best regards JK

2 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting
by Margie Milam Jan. 22, 2020

Jan. 22, 2020

Hi Marika & Janis - Thank you for the agenda & updated hybrid model. I’d like to propose that we defer the discussion of this hybrid model to our F2F meeting, to enable us to solicit feedback from our constituency on the proposal. Instead, we suggest that Thursday’s call focus on discussion on substantive issues, such as the language for the Purposes Building Block. All the best, Margie [https://facebook.design/public/images/logo.gif] Margie Milam Online IP Enforcement & Protection Lead | Legal IP NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 6:45 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

3 4