January 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC contribution on accreditation of public authorities
by LEWIS-EVANS, Christopher 22 Jan '20

22 Jan '20

OFFICIAL Janis and team please find on behalf of the GAC members the attached GAC accreditation principles paper. We apologise for the delay in getting this to you. Best Regards Chris Lewis-Evans From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: 22 January 2020 06:52 To: EPDP; gnso-epdp-lead(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC contribution on accreditation of public authorities Dear GAC members of the Team, I am writing to encourage you on behalf of the GAC to submit for consideration of the Team your ideas on how public authorities should be accredited and in what way they could interact with the SSAD. Without your contribution the Initial report will lack important element and the Team may not agree to release it as planned after the F2F meeting in LA. Thank you for considering this kind reminder with great urgency. Best regards JK ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ This information is supplied in confidence by NCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under data protection legislation. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the NCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries(a)nca.gov.uk. All E-Mail sent and received by NCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by NCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within NCA, on authority from the Director General or their Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

1 0

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 LEWIS-EVANS, Christopher 22 Jan '20

22 Jan '20

OFFICIAL Thank you for the proposed SSAD model to consider going forward. While this is a good step forward from the initial CPH proposal, we do not believe that it has captured the views expressed by the GAC in both the small group and plenary discussions and as part of comments upon draft language. Most importantly, the draft does not sufficiently reflect inputs regarding the need for any SSAD model to: 1) automate to the greatest extent that is possible at the start and move towards automating a greater proportion of activities (we anticipate that the percentage of automated decisions will increase as we obtain more information on legal issues and the system's operational capacity) 2) ensure the confidentiality of law enforcement requests. We would propose editing the introductory language to reflect these points. There are also a number of updates to the initial report that we are discussing but initially feel would require some further work before they would become acceptable. We look forward to working with the group both at the forthcoming plenary discussion and /or at the face to face meeting to make this happen. Best Regards Chris Lewis-Evans From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 21 January 2020 14:44 To: 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 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ This information is supplied in confidence by NCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under data protection legislation. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the NCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries(a)nca.gov.uk. All E-Mail sent and received by NCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by NCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within NCA, on authority from the Director General or their Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

2 1

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 23 January 2020
by Julie Bisland 22 Jan '20

22 Jan '20

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. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 is scheduled on Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 120 minutes. (calls will be scheduled for 120 minutes but aim to keep to 90 minutes) For other times: https://tinyurl.com/vk77j3v [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_vk77j3v&d=…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WAVxBw 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

GAC contribution on accreditation of public authorities
by Janis Karklins 22 Jan '20

22 Jan '20

Dear GAC members of the Team, I am writing to encourage you on behalf of the GAC to submit for consideration of the Team your ideas on how public authorities should be accredited and in what way they could interact with the SSAD. Without your contribution the Initial report will lack important element and the Team may not agree to release it as planned after the F2F meeting in LA. Thank you for considering this kind reminder with great urgency. Best regards JK

1 0

New GAC Alternate for EPDP Team
by Kapin, Laureen 21 Jan '20

21 Jan '20

Dear EPDP Team Colleagues and Support Team, Please note that Ryan Carroll (US GAC Representation) has just joined the GAC representation on the EPDP Team as the 3rdAlternate. Kind Regards, Sent via phone. Please excuse typos and/or unintended auto-correct outcomes. Laureen Kapin, Counsel Int’l Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission

1 0

ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter
by Anderson, Marc 18 Jan '20

18 Jan '20

Janis and EPDP2 working group, I would like an update on the status of ICANN org interactions with the European Commission, the Belgian DPA and the EDPB and importantly how that involvement may impact our work. Following the Belgian DPA response to the "Strawberry" paper ICANN org submitted to the EDPB, we briefly discussed the response during plenary calls (36, 37). The notes from the 19 December meeting ask the questions: - 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? I still have these questions. If they have been answered, I'm not aware of it. I checked the transcript from call #36 and note the following from Georgios: -------- GEORGIOS TSELENTIS: Okay, thank you. You are right, Janis. That was the first letter sent by the Belgian DPA. We thought it was publicly [released] from ICANN org. Then we had the response of ICANN org. This is, to my understanding, an invitation to provide more information also regarding the content of the model and how this is compliant with the policy that was developed to conduct GDPR according to the policy that we developed in the EPDP. So my understanding is that there's going to be a round of, again, a formal technical meeting between ICANN org and the Belgian DPA before having a formal reply to the policy guidance, which was sent out in the original letter. So our reading was that - I'm talking here with the hat on of the [inaudible] - there is a need for more information. There's many issues which are developed under also the EPDP in order for the Belgian DPA to make [inaudible] there is normally a DPA which is taking the lead and introduces the [subject to the Board] before having a formal reply. But we are still at the stage where the Belgian DPA, which is a penholder for this process, is seeking more information. In my understanding, in the beginning of January, there are seeking to have a technical meeting to have more information. This is as much information I have from my side. Thanks. ------- This seems to indicate that there will be future interactions involving ICANN Org, the European Commission and the Belgian DPA. Given our timelines and the current state of our work, it is critical that we understand the status of these discussions and how they may impact our work. I'm not sure the best way to get clarity on this, perhaps our ICANN org liaisons can provide an update or maybe a request from Janis to ICANN org asking for details. As it stands now though, I don't know if any further communication is going on, and if it is, what is being discussed. Thank you, Marc ICANN announcement of "Strawberry" paper to EDPB: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-org-seeks-european-data-protection-bo… Belgian DPA response: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/stevens-to-marby-04dec… ICANN notice of Belgian DAP response: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-12-17-en Meeting 36 (19 Dec 2019) - notes: https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/2019-12-19+EPDP-+Phase+2+call+… Meeting 36 Transcript: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/transcript/transcrip…

2 1

RySG feedback to legal sub team batch 2 questions for Bird and Bird
by Anderson, Marc 18 Jan '20

18 Jan '20

Janis and EPDP2 working group members, On behalf of the RySG team I am providing the following feedback to the draft batch 2 legal questions proposed by the legal committee. The RySG would like to thank the legal committee members, support staff and chairs, Leon, and Becky. Obviously a lot of hard work above and beyond the regular EPDP2 work went into this document and the RySG is appreciative of the time and efforts of all involved. The priority 1 questions all deal with reverse lookups. The RySG team is of the opinion that reverse lookups are out of scope of the EPDP's work. Consequently we request removing the reverse lookup questions from the batch 2 submission to Bird & Bird. We recognize that reverse lookups are convenient. They were not previously supported under pre-GDPR systems or in the scope of the charter. Expanding SSAD functionality in this manner is beyond our remit. It is the RySG position that the SSAD system resulting from our work should not support reverse lookups of any kind. This is not intended to preclude potential future policy work on reverse lookups however the RySG feels that policy work would need to be done in accordance with GNSO procedure developing an issues paper and specifically scoping that work. We also want to make it clear that we are not proposing a prohibition on any reverse functionality that may exist elsewhere (we view that as similarly out of scope), only that it isn't in scope for the EPDP2 work in developing an SSAD. Appreciating that a lot of effort clearly went into crafting the proposed batch 2 legal questions for Bird & Bird, the RySG team is requesting additional information on the intended outcome of the questions for Bird & Bird. Noting the cost of outside counsel and our responsibility to be financially responsible, we are having a difficult time judging if these questions are necessary for our work and if responses to them will aid the development of final policy recommendations. By way of example, we aren't sure how an answer to the question on Territorial Scope would help inform our phase 2 policy recommendations. The working group has always agreed that GDPR does not apply to everyone and has a shared understanding of its applicability. It doesn't appear that asking this question will result in new information for the working group to consider. It would be helpful to the working group to have clarity on the intended result of each question (e.g. support or modify an existing SSAD policy recommendation). It seems likely that would also help focus outside council if they have a better understanding of the purpose of the questions. Thank you, RySG Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Action Items
by Eleeza Agopian 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Dear EPDP team, In reviewing the CPH proposal in response to the first action item listed below, ICANN org would like to share with you the following implementation-related considerations regarding the “Disclosure Request Process” steps listed in the proposal. Some questions may apply more broadly to all the models under consideration by the EPDP, while others are specific to the CPH proposal. 1. Step #4 indicates that the “ request is routed to the applicable contracted party.” Who is the applicable contracted party: the registry or the registrar or is it both? (This question also applies to the other models under consideration by the team.) 2. #5: Would the request be automatically pushed to the Contracted Party via a system, or is the Contracted Party responsible for logging into a system to review requests? If so, how often? Monthly? Daily? Etc. Would this time frame include weekends and holidays? In addition, 5.A references two (2) business days. Whose business days does this reference? The Contracted Party? The requestor? The portal? 3. #6A notes that the Contracted Party will “provide the data to the requestor (most likely directly in order to avoid ICANN unnecessarily processing personal data).” How will the data get to the requestor? Would the requestor pull it from the contracted party or would the contracted party push it to the requestor? Would they use RDAP? Email? Web interface? 4. #6 B&C: Will the disclosure decision solely be up to the discretion of the Contracted Parties? Does ICANN have an enforcement role with regard to disclosure decisions? (This question also applies to the other models under consideration by the team.) For example what should ICANN do if: * A Contracted Party accepts every single request? * A Contracted Party rejects every single request? Thank you, Eleeza and Dan ICANN org liaisons From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 6:45 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Action Items Dear EPDP Team: Please find below a friendly reminder of outstanding EPDP Team action items: 1. EPDP Team to share ideas / thoughts / proposals in response to the CPH proposal and Mark Sv. slides, both of which are attached herein, by COB Friday, 17 January. Following receipt of proposals, EPDP Support Staff to develop new proposal factoring in the input received and the small team discussions by Tuesday, 21 January. 2. EPDP Team to provide detailed concerns or proposed edits to the questions proposed by the Legal Committee, attached herein, by COB Friday, 17 January. 3. IPC/BC and ISPCP colleagues to update the Initial Report Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rV0Iwo6HCABfP8oaxPC_u_D-vvjud15b/edit> to include previously-submitted feedback by Monday, 20 January. 4. Brian to propose a footnote clarifying cost causation under Financial Sustainability section by Monday, 20 January. 5. Amr, Brian, Stephanie & Franck to clarify intent of statement “under no circumstances should registered name holders be expected…” under Financial Sustainability section by Monday, 20 January. 6. When applying changes to the draft Initial Report Google Doc, EPDP Support Staff to add comments, noting the date and rationale why the text was changed, e.g., EPDP Team agreed to change may to must during Meeting #xx. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

EPDP Action Items
by Caitlin Tubergen 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below a friendly reminder of outstanding EPDP Team action items: 1. EPDP Team to share ideas / thoughts / proposals in response to the CPH proposal and Mark Sv. slides, both of which are attached herein, by COB Friday, 17 January. Following receipt of proposals, EPDP Support Staff to develop new proposal factoring in the input received and the small team discussions by Tuesday, 21 January. 2. EPDP Team to provide detailed concerns or proposed edits to the questions proposed by the Legal Committee, attached herein, by COB Friday, 17 January. 3. IPC/BC and ISPCP colleagues to update the Initial Report Google doc to include previously-submitted feedback by Monday, 20 January. 4. Brian to propose a footnote clarifying cost causation under Financial Sustainability section by Monday, 20 January. 5. Amr, Brian, Stephanie & Franck to clarify intent of statement “under no circumstances should registered name holders be expected…” under Financial Sustainability section by Monday, 20 January. 6. When applying changes to the draft Initial Report Google Doc, EPDP Support Staff to add comments, noting the date and rationale why the text was changed, e.g., EPDP Team agreed to change may to must during Meeting #xx. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

3 3

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 16 Jan '20

16 Jan '20

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/VgVxBw> (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