March 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #50 - 31 March 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. The next EPDP Team meeting will be Thursday, 2 April at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items Brian K., with the help of volunteers (Laureen, Alan G., Marc A.), to propose draft terms of reference for the proposed mechanism (what will it do) and modus operandi (how it will be done) by Tuesday, 7 April. EPDP Team to review the discussion table for Recommendation #9 – SLAs and provide comments prior to the next meeting on Thursday, 2 April. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #50 Proposed Agenda Tuesday, 31 March 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) Public comment forum on addendum open: Deadline for input 5 May 2020 Blog post announcing public comment forum and communicating additional opportunity to submit comments on Initial Report published Note that for those still planning on submitting comments on the Initial Report, notification needs to be provided to gnso-secs(a)icann.org by 31 March. NCSG, RySG and ISPCP already confirmed late submission, but have indicated that they would aim to submit as soon as possible. Format of public comment forum follows the same format as that for the Initial Report. As most topics are (hopefully) non-controversial, it is the expectation that the EPDP Team will be able to review the input in time for including it in the Final Report. In principle, between now and publication of Final Report only 10 meetings remain. This will require a real commitment from everyone. Representatives of groups should know by now the positions of their respective groups and be able to take decisive action when reviewing comments, which shouldn’t require going back on an ongoing basis when compromises are reached. 4. Public comment review by EPDP Team PCRTs and Discussion Tables wiki page - https://community.icann.org/x/Hi6JBw Walk through of discussion table example Feedback from EPDP Team Confirm next steps See wiki page – note that the first entry contains the raw data. For each of the recommendation a public comment review tool (PCRT) and discussion table will be provided to facilitate public comment review. The discussion tables will link to google docs which are to be used by groups to provide their input in advance of the different meetings. In order to make this approach productive, groups MUST provide their input by the deadlines that will be established shortly. As an example, walk through of the discussion table for recommendation #9 which will be on the agenda for Thursday’s meeting. Identical and/or similar comments have been grouped together. In addition, these have been organized in line with the different sections of the recommendations so it will hopefully become easier for the team to review and determine which changes, if any, should be made to the recommendation. In addition, a label has been attached to the grouped comments such as ‘concern’, ‘clarification’ and ‘proposed edit’. Each group is asked to review the discussion table and fill out the corresponding tables to indicate whether there is agreement with issues flagged as well as proposed changes to address concerns. Note that the only comments that are not included is ‘support’ (without any text) and ‘no opinion’. However, not all comments are copy/pasted – if they are similar, there is no need as the same sentiment is conveyed. The discussion table is not intended to be a quantitative review – it does indicate the # of similar comments that have been submitted, but it is up to the EPDP Team to decide whether additional weight should be given to that. Unless new information is provided by late comments, it will be difficult to go back to comments / issues already addressed. Groups that have not submitted yet should speak up as part of the review to indicate their perspectives. Staff will also aim to flag if issues are raised that have not been considered yet or where new information is provided. Comments that are received late shouldn’t been given less weight, but it would be helpful to have a firm date by when these should be in. Staff will do its best to get comments added as soon as received. Aggregate data may be another way to address confidentiality. 5. Mechanism for the evolution of SSAD (45 minutes) Consider EPDP Team Input on Brainstorming Proposal Feedback from EPDP Team Confirm next steps SSAD is a conceptual, new environment resulting from restrictions imposed externally. EPDP Team anticipates that this will work in a certain way, but this is based on certain assumptions which may be right, wrong or evolve over time. Recommendations should capture idea of evolution and improvements that do not require changes to the policy. For example, response time – maybe response time is impossible due to number of requests received. How can that be addressed if there is no mechanism but a PDP or contractual negotiations? Evolution is a part of the compromise – not changing the underlying policy but course correcting implementation based on experience and legal guidance that will become available over time. Staff Support Team discussion team outlined 4 different options, based on input received during the public comment period (Standing Committee, (standing) IRT, GGP, contractual negotiations). BC/IPC both support standing IRT, RrSG supports contractual negotiations or PDP, Org Liaisons indicated that GGP is a possible approach. ALAC also supports (standing) IRT, assuming that there is a joint-controllership agreement which would require CPs to agree to additional automation use cases. Mechanism would only focus on implementation related issues – policy recommendations would need to be formulated in such a way to allow for a review of the implementation through an agreed upon mechanism, without a full-blown PDP. NCSG may have a preference for Standing Committee – as long as recommendations go to the GNSO Council. Contractual negotiations would exclude other parties to provide input / participate. GGP was specifically designed to provide implementation guidance. Standing IRT may be difficult as the ground may shift over time. Need to first clearly define what would be in scope for this mechanism. Only way to create binding requirements on Contracted Parties is through policy development or contractual negotiations. Need to be clear on what we need the tools for. Need some kind of implementation review. A guidance process would be a good tool to inform the contractual negotiation process between ICANN and CPs in the form of a contractual negotiations. Different topics may need a different route. May need a tool box that can be used to affect changes. Possible scope of mechanism: Does not create or change policy Evolve aspects of SSAD – SLAs and automation. Consider for each of those what is the best mechanism to evolve, it may be different. GGP may require little work as the mechanism already exists and is intended to provide guidance. No remit for EPDP Team to change existing GNSO processes. Who participates in a GGP – charter developed and approved by GNSO Council, no restriction on what membership could look like. Highly unlikely that GNSO Council would exclude groups that are participating in this EPDP or others that are directly impacted. Action item: Brian K. to put together terms of reference (what will it do) and modus operandi (how it will be done). (other volunteers: Laureen, Alan G., Marc A.) 6. Reporting (Implementation guidance ii) (30 minutes) Consider EPDP Team Input on discussion table Feedback from EPDP Team Confirm next steps Should only define reports that are to be publicly posted on the SSAD system Frequency – may need a bit further thought, although quarterly may be reasonable. Should metrics be produced over SSAD system as a whole or per registry / registrar basis? Public reports should be on overall SSAD system, not per registry/registrar basis as there are some concerns around that. Could also consider operational reporting – data available to assess how SSAD works operationally which would be used by those following the implementation of SSAD. Should consider all reporting – both public and non-public reports. This may be an evolutionary thing – provide first level of things that are needed. System will be collecting statistics all the time so a type of dashboard may be the solution here instead of manually generated reports? Users of SSAD should be able to see their own statistics. Should this be left to the operator of the system as an implementation issue? EPDP Team recommendation should focus its policy recommendation on public reporting. Should not forego individual reports being made available by the implementor but should define the minimum of public reporting to take place. Also consider information per requestor basis. Any compliance should be handled between ICANN Org and Contracted Parties – public reporting does not equate to a compliance report. Also need to consider privacy of requestors, if not legal persons – need to be careful what information is publicly posted. Consider need to know vs. good to know. Consider listing down principles and by what lens they may be used (public, access by CP or Requestor for their own use, Compliance, Audit) and less about creating a list of what should be reported on. LEA requests would likely need to be confidential. Reporting will flow from logging so need to have consistency between the two recommendations. What are objectives of reporting – need to be clear on that. Need to consider impact of data that is reported / published. More data that will be collected than will be publicly shared. 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): Thursday 2 April at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: SLAs. Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Action item: EPDP Team to review the discussion table for recommendation #9 and provide comments prior to Thursday’s meeting.

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Tuesday, 31 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Tuesday, 31 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/qSKJBw> (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 as panelist, observers can join as an attendee to listen. 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

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 02 April 2020
by Terri Agnew March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

**See April webinar zoom URL link below. As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio 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, 02 April 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/qszvdfr Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/yyqJBw 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…> **Updated information** April observer zoom webinar room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/731687691 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. One tap mobile US: +16699006833,,731687691# or +13462487799,,731687691# Webinar ID: 731 687 691 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Proposed agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #50 - Tuesday, 31 March at 14:00 UTC
by Caitlin Tubergen March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting on Tuesday, 31 March at 14:00 UTC. As a reminder, please complete the below action item, which is due by COB today. Following review of the Public Comment Review Tool for Recommendation 19 and the Recommendation 19 Discussion Table, EPDP Team to provide feedback on the Mechanism Brainstorming Document via the input table at the bottom of the document by COB Monday, 30 March. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #50 Proposed Agenda Tuesday, 31 March 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) Public comment forum on addendum open: Deadline for input 5 May 2020 Blog post announcing public comment forum and communicating additional opportunity to submit comments on Initial Report published 4. Public comment review by EPDP Team PCRTs and Discussion Tables wiki page - https://community.icann.org/x/Hi6JBw Walk through of discussion table example Feedback from EPDP Team Confirm next steps 5. Mechanism for the evolution of SSAD (45 minutes) Consider EPDP Team Input on Brainstorming Proposal Feedback from EPDP Team Confirm next steps 6. Reporting (Implementation guidance ii) (30 minutes) Consider EPDP Team Input on discussion table Feedback from EPDP Team Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): Thursday 2 April at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: SLAs. Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

3 2

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Tuesday, 31 March 2020
by Julie Bisland March 30, 2020

March 30, 2020

**Zoom webinar room now available for observers, see below As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio 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 Tuesday, 31 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/utxstph [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_utxstph&d=…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/qSKJBw 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…> **Updated information** March observer zoom webinar room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/584419970 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_j_584419…> Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Or iPhone one-tap :US: +16699006833,,584419970# or +13462487799,,584419970# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 584 419 970 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #49
by Caitlin Tubergen March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next EPDP Team meeting will be Tuesday, 31 March at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items EPDP Support Team to incorporate the edits agreed to during today’s meeting and publish the addendum for public comment today. The public comment period of the addendum will close on 5 May 2020. EPDP Support Team to send the automation use case legal questions to the EPDP Team. Following review of the Public Comment Review Tool for Recommendation 19 and the Recommendation 19 Discussion Table, EPDP Team to provide feedback on the Mechanism Brainstorming Document via the input table at the bottom of the document by COB Monday, 30 March. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #49 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 26 March 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) Legal Committee update Please refer to the executive summary on the consent memo The Legal Committee agreed on language for questions on the automation use cases, and those will be sent to Bird & Bird today. Support Staff to share the automation use cases questions with the plenary team 4. Finalization of Addendum to Initial Report (15 minutes) Review any minor edits that have been flagged by EPDP Team members as not being minor Have all parties agreed that minor edits are OK to proceed? Feedback from EPDP Team Legal vs. Natural Question re: legal vs. natural – ALAC agrees with BC and believes legal vs. natural should not be deferred to the GNSO Council for consideration in the future – this should go back to the EPDP after this Addendum is published. There was no agreement on formation of a Small Group. The Team should flag this open issue to the Community in this addendum. A Small Group will not solve this – it needs to go to the GNSO Council. A Small Group would be a waste of time. Object to not allowing for dissenting opinions in the Initial Report If there was new input to provide on this topic, it may have been worthwhile to form a small group. The advice from B&B does not qualify as new input, as the group does not have a legal disagreement; it has a policy disagreement. Reminder of conversation from Tuesday – there was a conversation about the noted Purpose 2 divergence from NCSG. Some EPDP Team members objected to the divergence being captured in the addendum b/c other areas of divergence were not captured. In the interest of time, NCSG agreed to remove the noted divergence in the addendum, and groups could publish minority statements in the Final Report. What was decided on Tuesday was the EPDP Team would not provide language, but that is different than a group providing a separate statement Objectionable that dissenting opinions cannot be included as an attachment to the addendum Instead of saying the EPDP Team will consult with the GNSO Council – suggest saying, “As a result, the EPDP Team will consult with the GNSO Council on potential next steps.” Support this edit Recommend adding a sentence re: additional legal advice from Bird & Bird. Minor edits Remove the “also” from the highlighted sentence and change “MAY” to “may” “The full p/p data may include a pseudonymized email.” Confirm next steps If there is a group of volunteers wishing to contemplate the legal advice from B&B, the small group could submit a public comment, and the EPDP Team will review the comments. Any Group wishing to submit a minority statement can do so in the Final Report. Staff Support can provide technical support to a Small Team, i.e., setting up Zoom meetings, but will not be able to provide substantive support due to focus on public comment review EPDP Team agreed to Laureen’s proposed update on preliminary conclusion on legal vs. natural persons: “As a result, the EPDP Team will consult with the GNSO Council on potential next steps.” Agreement to add statement re: legal guidance + policy question Agreement to edit sentence to: The full p/p data may include a pseudonymized email. Agreement to remove RySG’s proposed edit on pp. 17-18 Support Staff to apply edits and publish the addendum for public comment 5. Review of Public Comments on Initial Report (30 minutes) Confirm if/when EPDP groups that have not submitted their comments yet are planning to do so NCSG: hope to finalize input by the end of next week, and following the internal process to adopt the input as formal NCSG input, the comment will likely be published in approximately 2 weeks RySG: hope to finalize input as soon as possible, but the submission date is currently unknown Other groups who have not submitted comments – please inform Support Staff when the comments will be submitted High level overview of input received by deadline (Staff Support) Since we opened up the public comment period, we have been focusing on Priority 2 questions. Now we are fully back to our critical path work, which is reviewing the public comments. Proposed approach for review of comments: This will be very similar to how comments were handled during Phase 1 Comments are deposited into a format that is not user-friendly way However, this method saves many staff hours in the preparation of comments for deliberation Staff uses excel to normalize the data in a quantitative and qualitative way There are pie charts for each recommendation – these are guesstimates for support levels – these are NOT consensus levels Normalizing the data: to develop the pie charts, there was a filtering exercise to take the duplicates out There are nine groups that have or will submit comments Three groups have yet to submit, so there are placeholders to mark that 26 organizations (companies or associations) submitted comments 1 individual 2 duplicate submissions – either duplicative comment from the same org or duplicative of another organization’s comments Once this Excel is finalized, the Team can review for accuracy. >From this excel sheet, we move to the Public Comment Review Tool – broken out by support, support with wording change, significant change required, deleted, or no opinion Where the Team will be heading – the key element where the team could quickly review through the comments, the Team can refer to the discussion table. The discussion tables are a different version on how to organize the top-most concerns as provided by the groups We will then have a template and space for each group to flag what comments warrant further discussion, with a focus on “new” and “cannot live with” items The PCRTs should all be posted by the end of the weekend The full schedule will be posted by next Tuesday We still have an aggressive schedule, and there are a lot of comments to review. EPDP Team Members will have to come prepared to discuss the most pressing comments. Commence deliberations on items identified in the report as requiring further work/review, considering input received to date, such as: Mechanism for the evolution of SSAD SLAs Reporting requirements Staff support team to organize comments by preliminary recommendation, similar to approach in phase 1 (one document with all comments relating to that recommendation, see example and one discussion table, see example). Order of review determined by level of disagreement / change expected to be needed. Every week by Tuesday COB, groups to provide their views on the discussion table for the topics that are to be discussed during Thursday’s plenary. One meeting per week, with the understanding that groups will deliver on their homework by COB on Tuesday. Leadership team & staff support team will consider input received on Wednesday and identify which comments need further consideration and/or proposed changes to the recommendation to address input received. Note, based on input received by 31 March on if/how many additional comments are expected, the approach may need to be revised. Note, it will require the commitment of groups to review input received each week by the deadline – hopefully with only one plenary call a week and no small team meetings, groups will be able to organize accordingly. Feedback from EPDP Team Concerned about public comments coming later affecting the work – for the mechanism, by way of example, what it the group agrees on a change, and something new comes in via a new stakeholder group? How is the group expected to revisit everything? Suggest for colleagues whose groups have not submitted – bring up with the concerns within the discussions Late comments sound like a logistical nightmare – if the portion of the feedback applicable to that week’s discussion should be brought forward during the discussion Had doubts about new format b/c freeform response form is easier for the commenter to use, but appreciate that it makes review and creation of overview much easier, so warming up to the new format – appreciate the work that went into it. Team is working under extraordinary circumstances here – grateful for additional time but will try to submit comments as soon as possible In recognition of the unusual circumstances, there is a time extension and it’s reasonable for members to take an extension; however, do not want delayed submissions to backfire on constituencies who submitted their feedback by the deadline. Hope that groups allow the discussion to continue and do not foreclose opportunity to reopen the discussion if new comments arise. Confirm next steps Next Tuesday will be the last meeting of the Team, which should be considered as catch up with non F2F meeting in Cancun. Beginning the week of 6 April, the Team will have one meeting per week, which could extend up to three hours 6. Mechanism for the evolution of SSAD (45 minutes) Consider input received (Public Comment Review Tool & Discussion Table) Consider Staff Support Brainstorming Proposal The brainstorming proposal provides high-level summaries of the comments to date received on the mechanism The Staff Support Team reviewed some of the options suggested in the public comment forum and provided additional background on four suggested options: the GNSO Guidance Process, a Cross-Community Standing Committee (like the CSC), a GNSO Standing Committee (like the SCBO), and contractual negotiations The document is a draft and does not indicate review of approval from ICANN org or the ICANN Board – any suggested mechanism will be subject to additional scrutiny Feedback from EPDP Team We still have not addressed the controller issue, and until we know who is responsible for the decision-making. We need guidance from ICANN org on this Hesitant on having this conversation without RySG input. Whatever this mechanism does cannot be construed as policy-making. The mechanism may not be needed if the model is fully centralized Rec. 19 is a particularly difficult recommendation for the registries – have to protect CPs against changing or creating policy outside of the established mechanisms CPs may have liability with decisions made by the SSAD and they need a veto that they do not feel comfortable; however, as we go forward, there may be a JC relationship and the responsibilities are clear. There may be insurance to protect the CPs – build for the current world, but this may change. The new gTLD model is something that could be considered here Question of insurance – coming up with a liability scheme and how to indemnify each other is not only relevant to the decision-making part; it is also important with respect to aspects of collection Confirm next steps Staff will include this document in a Google doc format EPDP Team Members to provide comments by COB Monday, 30 March 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): Tuesday 31 March at 14.00 UTC. Topics to be addressed: Continued discussion of mechanism for the evolution of SSAD, reporting requirements. Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/oBiJBw> (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 as panelist, observers can join as an attendee to listen. 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

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Tuesday, 31 March 2020
by Terri Agnew March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

**Zoom webinar room now available for observers, see below As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio 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 Tuesday, 31 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/utxstph Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/qSKJBw 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…> **Updated information** March observer zoom webinar room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/584419970 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Or iPhone one-tap :US: +16699006833,,584419970# or +13462487799,,584419970# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 584 419 970 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Summary of recent Bird & Bird memo on consent
by Caitlin Tubergen March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Sent on behalf of the EPDP Phase 2 Legal Committee: Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached a summary on the recent memo from Bird & Bird re: consent. The full text of the legal memo can be found on the EPDP Wiki. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Minor edits -Ry-SG pages 17-18
by Margie Milam March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Hi Marc – I wanted to give you a heads-up that the BC doesn’t view the RY-SG recommended edit as minor. In particular, we don’t agree that the schedule constraints should stop further policy work on accuracy at the EPDDP in Phase 2. Margie [https://facebook.design/public/images/logo.gif] Margie Milam IP Enforcement & DNS Policy Lead | Facebook Legal 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 "Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Minor edits - Rec #20 - email discussion All, As time is short, I want to try and cover this via email. The first minor edit proposed by the BC is this: Page 9 (223-224) IPC As a friendly amendment, the final sentence doesn’t seem to add anything but confusion. P/P providers do not need the EPDP’s permission to use a pseudonumized email address. The word “also” is particularly problematic as it could be interpreted as “in addition to the RDDS data” (mentioned in the preceding sentence). We think this recommendation is clearer with this sentence removed. Friendly amendment: for clarity, strike final sentence in this recommendation. I think the last sentence is important to have, clarifying that a pseudonymized email may be provided in the response. I understand this is a practice among some P/P providers. Similar language was used in the original phase 1 recommendation# 14 that this is intended to replace. Is the word “also” the main problem… could concerns be addressed by just removing that word? Thanks, Marc

2 1