February 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 06 February 2020
by Julie Bisland Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

**Updated duration below. 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 06 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/toxw56e [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_toxw56e&d=…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/XgVxBw 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

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review by Tuesday 4 February - EPDP Team Initial Report
by Margie Milam Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

As requested, please find attached the Issues List that includes input from the BC and the IPC on the Draft Initial Report. 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: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 6:43 PM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review by Tuesday 4 February - EPDP Team Initial Report Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached for your final review the latest draft of the EPDP Team Initial Report. You will find attached both the redline version and a clean, line numbered version. * In the redline, you will find the changes agreed during today’s discussions, proposed language prepared by a small team addressing the joint controller issue and some further updates to other parts of the Initial Report. * Please note that the staff support team further reviewed the accreditation section to address the confusion around the authorization credential and in consultation with Alex Deacon, the original author, we are proposing to change the reference from “authorization credential” to “signed assertions” to avoid any confusion with the authorization function for disclosure requests. This should not change any of the substance, Please use the attached issues sheet to list any items your group cannot live with for publication in the Initial Report at the latest by Tuesday 4 February COB. Like during the F2F meeting, you are required to provide your rationale as well as proposed language to address your concern, factoring in discussions to date. In order to ensure that the focus of discussions for next week Thursday’s meeting is on ‘cannot live with’ items, please highlight those in red. The Staff Support Team will circulate a compiled list to the EPDP Team on Wednesday so that you can review with your group and flag in advance or at the start of the call which items need further consideration. Any non-substantial edits or suggestions can be sent off-list to the staff support team. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

Recall: [EXTERNAL] Re: Latest version of Automated Use Cases document
by Mark Svancarek (CELA) Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Mark Svancarek (CELA) would like to recall the message, "[EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Latest version of Automated Use Cases document".

1 0

SSAD Swim lane Model - Updated
by policy＠bacinblack.com Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Dear All, Please find attached updated swim lanes of the proposed SSAD model for the Initial Report. This version incorporates the suggested changes by the EPDP last week in LA. It also includes a few small adjustments to better match the visual representation with the draft recommendations. Visually, the changes look extensive, but they are really more to increase readability and to mitigate confusion that this is a policy representation and not one that is technical. On page 2 you will find a high-level change log from v0.5 that I presented last week. Given the agenda set for Thursday, the preference to submit feedback to v0.6.1 will be better served over the mailing list. However, if you find a gross mis-match from the diagram and the draft recommendations, we can try to discuss it on the call. Please let me know if you have any questions or require clarification. Thank you. B Berry Cobb @berrycobb GNSO Policy Consultant

1 0

IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
by King, Brian Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Hello EPDP Team, Please find below our first proposal for automated disclosure. Trademark Infringement in Domain Name Requestor Safeguards 1. Accreditation Authority determines that the trademark is valid. 2. Accreditation Authority determines that Requestor is the legal owner, agent, or service provider of the trademark. Request Safeguards 1. Requestor alleges that the domain name infringes Requestor's trademark. 2. Requestor states its own legal basis and purpose for processing the data. Requestor makes a syntactically correct and complete request, including any/all required Authorization Assertions. Requestor makes all representations required by policy: use will be limited to stated purpose, data retention, etc. 3. Domain string contains exact match of trademark string (potentially including prefix or suffix, e.g. "nike-shoes.TLD" or "cheap-nike.TLD"). Additional Noteworthy Safeguards 1. Registrant committed not to infringe the rights of third parties in its registration agreement, as required by the RA and RAA. 2. Registrant was informed at the time that its data was collected that it could be processed for third-party purposes, including intellectual property protection. In these cases, disclosure can be automated. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs T +1 443 761 3726 markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> MarkMonitor Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world

7 14

ICANN org meeting with Belgian DPA
by Eleeza Agopian Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Dear EPDP team, This is to inform you that ICANN org has been invited to a meeting with the Belgian DPA on 14 Feb., following the DPA’s invitation to continue the dialogue in a letter<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-12-17-en> received by ICANN org in Dec. 2019. We will provide the EPDP team with an update following the meeting. Thank you, Eleeza and Dan ICANN org liaisons

2 1

SSAD Use Cases which are automatable
by Mark Svancarek (CELA) Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Feedback requested.

2 2

FW: Latest version of Automated Use Cases document
by Mueller, Milton L Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

I would not even favor doing that. Let’s just say, “there will be some use cases that qualify for automated disclosure” and we will propose a set of them in the final report. The details, nuances and subtleties of those cases will consume a lot of time and it’s a bad idea to throw some half-developed ideas out for public comment. --MM If I can make a constructive suggestion since I’ve come to understand it is important that we list our examples in the initial report: We should merely list the headings of “use cases” for public comment, noting that we will be discussing the legal and policy potential for each of them, and that we may confirm or reject some, all, or none of them based on public comment and our own deliberations.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] About the "Issues sheet"
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Milton and Team: The agenda message had three attachments: 1. an issues list, where groups may populate items within the report that they cannot live with, 2. a red-lined word doc that does not contain line numbers, but shows the updates made as a result of agreements reached during the F2F, and 3. a clean PDF with line numbers. You may view the line numbers via the PDF. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> Date: Monday, February 3, 2020 at 11:49 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] About the "Issues sheet" Caitlin, The issues sheet asks for “line numbers” to help specify where the text we are concerned about is. However, in the Word document with the draft report, I do not see any line numbers. Am I looking at the wrong thing? Should I see them on the draft, or should I use other indicators, such as section X.Y, bullet point 3, line 2, for example? Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

5 5

About the "Issues sheet"
by Mueller, Milton L Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

Caitlin, The issues sheet asks for "line numbers" to help specify where the text we are concerned about is. However, in the Word document with the draft report, I do not see any line numbers. Am I looking at the wrong thing? Should I see them on the draft, or should I use other indicators, such as section X.Y, bullet point 3, line 2, for example? Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

1 0