March 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

ICANN Community Excellence Award - Nomination Closes 27 March 2020
by Andrea Glandon 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-03-16-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ICANN Community Excellence Award: Nomination Closes 27 March 2020 LOS ANGELES – 16 March 2020 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) reminds community members that the nomination period for ICANN's Community Excellence Award is open until 27 March 2020 23:59 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC). The ICANN Community Excellence Award recognizes community members who have significantly invested in consensus-based solutions and have contributed substantively to the ICANN multistakeholder model. The ideal recipient(s) will have: · Participated in the ICANN community for a minimum of five years. · Served in multiple ICANN working groups or committees. · Collaborated significantly with more than one Supporting Organization (SO) and/or Advisory Committee (AC). Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the SO/AC chairs using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrates an ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANN stakeholders with the aim of building consensus. 2. Facilitates dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner through the spirit of collaboration, showing empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests. 3. Demonstrates additional support for ICANN multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit nominations via this nomination form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_…> and include detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted to exellenceaward2020(a)icann.org<mailto:excellenceaward2020@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2020 at ICANN68 in Kuala Lumpur. For more information on the award program, please refer to the ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw>

1 0

Proposed agenda - EPDP Meeting #47 - 19 March 2020
by policy＠bacinblack.com 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting on Tuesday, 17 March at 14:00 UTC. Reminder of upcoming deadlines: * EPDP Team to provide feedback on the draft Purpose 2 recommendation via the <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VwslSx0RKXQjf_eJFvQNQ3V0M_37sELl/edit> Purpose 2 Google doc by Tuesday, 17 March. * Each EPDP group to provide additional feedback on the Financial consideration questions by Monday, 18 March; please provide feedback using side-bar comments within the Financial consideration questions <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YtLHw4ASPOLwI_77bXGJrGypCHzYePQ5vaIWXzP…> Google Doc. * Mark Sv. to review Automation Use Case #8 and update the text based on the today’s discussion by Tuesday, 17 March. * Matthew Crossman to draft bullet points, regarding the suggestion to send the automation use cases to outside counsel for further guidance on liability and risk, for the Legal Committee’s review, by Tuesday, 17 March. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #47 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 19 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) a. Legal committee update b. Answers <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YtLHw4ASPOLwI_77bXGJrGypCHzYePQ5vaIWXzP…> to ICANN Org questions on cost estimates 4. Purpose 2 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VwslSx0RKXQjf_eJFvQNQ3V0M_37sELl/edit> (priority 2) (15 minutes) a. Review ‘cannot live with’ comments received, if any b. Review minor edits received, if any c. Confirm language for inclusion in the addendum to the Initial Report 5. Addendum to Initial Report (15 minutes) a. Overview of addendum (staff support team) b. Proposed timeline for review by EPDP Team c. Proposed public comment timeline d. Confirm next steps 6. Clarification of the proposed SLA process (30 minutes) a. See document <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200304/72314f67/…> shared by Mark SV and Volker b. Feedback from EPDP Team c. Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. Tuesday 24 March at 14.00 UTC. Topics to be addressed: Review and finalize input on addendum, overview of comments submitted on SSAD Initial Report and discuss approach for reviewing input. b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Tuesday, 17 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Tuesday, 17 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/oB_JBw> (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) **will be posted shortly** * 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

Legal guidance - consent
by Caitlin Tubergen 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Dear EPDP Team: Please find attached the latest memo from Bird & Bird in response to the following question: Registration data submitted by legal person registrants may contain the data of natural persons. A Phase 1 memo stated that registrars can rely on a registrant's self-identification as legal or natural person if risk is mitigated by taking further steps to ensure the accuracy of the registrant's designation. As a follow-up to that memo: what are the consent options and requirements related to such designations? Specifically: are data controllers entitled to rely on a statement obligating legal person registrants to obtain consent from a natural person who would act as a contact and whose information may be publicly displayed in RDS? If so, what representations, if any, would be helpful for the controller to obtain from the legal person registrant in this case? As part of your analysis, please consult the GDPR policies and practices of the Internet protocol (IP address) registry RIPE-NCC (the registry for Europe, based in the Netherlands). RIPE-NCC’s customers (registrants) are legal persons, usually corporations. Natural persons can serve as their contacts, resulting in the data of natural persons being displayed publicly in WHOIS. RIPE-NCC places the responsibility on its legal-person registrants to obtain permission from those natural persons, and provides procedures and safeguards for that. RIPE-NCC states mission justifications and data collection purposes similar to those in ICANN's Temporary Specification. Could similar policies and procedures be used at ICANN? Please see these specific references: 1) “How We're Implementing the GDPR: Legal Grounds for Lawful Personal Data Processing and the RIPE Database”: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/Athina/gdpr-legal-grounds-for-lawful-personal… [labs.ripe.net] 2) “How We're Implementing the GDPR: The RIPE Database”: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/Athina/how-we-re-implementing-the-gdpr-the-ri… [labs.ripe.net] If time permits, also see the policies of ARIN, the IP address registry for North America. ARIN has some customers located in the EU. ARIN also publishes the data of natural persons in its WHOIS output. ARIN’s customers are natural persons, who submit the data of natural person contacts. 3) ARIN "Data Accuracy": https://www.arin.net/reference/materials/accuracy/ [arin.net] 4) ARIN Registration Services Agreement, paragraph 3: https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsa.pdf [arin.net] "Personal Data Privacy Considerations At ARIN": https://teamarin.net/2018/03/20/personal-data-privacy-considerations-at-ari… [teamarin.net] especially the first two paragraphs -- Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

3 2

Fwd: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps
by Rafik Dammak 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Hi all, sharing here the response from Keith on behalf on GNSO council. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Drazek, Keith via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: mar. 17 mars 2020 à 06:55 Subject: Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps To: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Hi all, Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion, both during our Council meeting last week and here on the list. While we do not have full agreement on a path forward, my sense is there is broad recognition that the topic of RDS data accuracy is both important and complex, and most believe it will require more time than is currently available to the EPDP for its Phase 2 work on developing policy to support the Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD). Further, while the Priority 2 issues are included in the Phase 2 work plan, they are not part of the critical path to delivery of the Phase 2 Final Report on the SSAD. With the 24 March deadline for publishing the addendum to the Initial Report, I think the prudent course of action is to follow the proposal I circulated below. As such, I will respond to Janis and Rafik with guidance that the topic of data accuracy should be deferred/decoupled from the work of the EPDP until the Council can consider the issue further. Specifically, I will advise that: 1. Council acknowledges the importance and complexity of the topic, but also the time and resource constraints. 2. Council will discuss and consider possible next steps, including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across policy/contracts/procedures. This scoping team would be similar to those used to provide advice to Council on IDN Variants and Transfer Policy (both of which will likely recommend PDP initiation). 3. Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and recognize the need to prioritize accordingly. 4. Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team. This should be done as soon as reasonably possible to take advantage of the existing legal and financial resources. I’d like to note that Council could still decide to extend the work of the EPDP to cover this issue, versus establishing a new group, but we simply haven’t had that conversation yet. I look forward to our continued discussion. Thanks and regards, Keith *From:* council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith via council *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:34 PM *To:* council(a)gnso.icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs(a)icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps Hi all, As a follow-up to Rafik’s 6 March email (below) and our brief discussion during yesterday’s Council meeting, I’d like to share my current thinking and propose a path forward. If anyone has views to share, please do so now; the EPDP Phase 2 Team needs our guidance in short order. I’ve done some additional homework since yesterday’s call, so I hope I’ve captured everything here accurately. 1. The issue of registrant data accuracy is an important topic that deserves full and thorough consideration, including its impact on GNSO policy, contracted party agreements, and other ICANN processes such as ARS. As such, it is not only a policy issue, and there are likely non-GDPR-specific factors that will need to be considered. 2. The EPDP Team Phase 1 Final Report Recommendation #4 said, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.” The ICANN Board approved this recommendation without further guidance or comment. 3. There is not agreement within the EPDP on the meaning of “data accuracy” in the context of GDPR. There is disagreement over whether it is only from the perspective of the data subject or also third parties? There was a legal memo received during Phase 1 on the topic of data accuracy and a legal question was developed during Phase 2 to help clarify the meaning, but it has not been submitted. 4. The charter for the EPDP did not specify or identify the topic of data accuracy as within scope, but the EPDP Phase 1 final report included a reference to data accuracy in footnote #24. That footnote said: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” This footnote did not specify that such further consideration take place in Phase 2, but the issue was included in the Phase 2 work plan that was approved by the GNSO Council. 5. During Phase 1, the EPDP Team requested external legal counsel guidance on the topic of accuracy in the context of GDPR, and received the following summary answer: “In sum, because compliance with the Accuracy Principle is based on a reasonableness standard, ICANN and the relevant parties will be better placed to evaluate whether these procedures are sufficient. From our vantage point, as the procedures do require affirmative steps that will help confirm accuracy, unless there is reason to believe these are insufficient, we see no clear requirement to review them.” 6. There is not sufficient clarity at this time on how existing accuracy requirements have been impacted by GDPR. As such, in order to properly consider and scope further work on registrant data accuracy, more discussion is needed among interested/impacted parties, including ICANN Org. 7. The EPDP is scheduled to conclude its Phase 2 work in June with its deliberations on priority 2 items, of which accuracy is one, needing to complete by 24 March at the latest to be included in the Final Report. Furthermore, and there is no FY21 budget assigned for its continuation beyond that time. Under these constraints (time, resources, complexity), our ability to reach a policy solution in a couple of months is highly unlikely if not impossible and could delay delivery of the Final Report on SSAD which has been identified by basically everyone as priority #1. In light of the above, my recommended path forward for the Council and EPDP is as follows: 1. Council acknowledge the importance and complexity of the topic, but also the time and resource constraints noted above. 2. Council will discuss and consider possible next steps, including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across policy/contracts/procedures. 3. Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and recognize the need to prioritize accordingly. 4. Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team. I hope that strikes the right balance to ensure the work will be done, while giving the community space and time to approach the issue holistically and to carefully develop any needed policy recommendations. I shared this with Rafik and Pam and we are in agreement. We were asked to respond by Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t leave much time for feedback, so please respond by 11:59 UTC on Monday 16 March. This will allow us to deliver our reply to the EPDP Team prior to their Tuesday call. Thanks, Keith *From:* council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Friday, March 6, 2020 6:32 PM *To:* Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP Hi all, I am sending a request from EPDP team chair asking guidance from GNSO council regarding WHOIS accuracy. There was disagreement within the EPDP team if the topic is within scope or not. So we would like to get from council guidance regarding its expectations on WHOIS accuracy issue in phase 2 and if the EPDP team is expected to deliberate on it or not asap, taking into account the GNSO council and ICANN org ongoing correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec1…> on the matter. The EPDP team chair asked that GNSO council can provide guidance by Friday 13th march so that the EPDP team will have time to receive further guidance from the external legal council (if applicable). The time constraint can be also explained that EPDP team is currently deliberating priority 2 topics during the initial report public comment period. Best Regards, Rafik _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.

2 1

Legal vs. natural and WHOIS accuracy questions from Phase 1
by Janis Karklins 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached a Legal Committee question, which touches on both legal vs. natural and WHOIS accuracy questions from Phase 1. The Legal Committee did not unanimously agree to submit this question to outside counsel, as NSCG disagrees with this question in principle and believes it to be out of scope. I am sending this question as an FYI and noting that it will not be sent to Bird & Bird at this time. I am also specifically requesting Rafik, as both the vice-chair and GNSO Council Liaison to this EPDP Team, to seek further guidance from the GNSO Council with respect to the Council’s expectations related to WHOIS accuracy issue in Phase 2. As many of you are likely aware, there is currently an ongoing discussion between ICANN org and the GNSO Council regarding Recommendation 4 and the accompanying footnote from the Phase 1 Final Report, which provides, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.”[1] <#_ftn1> The accompanying footnote reads: The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System. Most recently, ICANN org sent the following correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec1…> to the GNSO Council, in reference to a request for clarification on data accuracy and the EPDP Phase 2. I have asked Rafik to seek further guidance from the Council with respect to the scope of data accuracy for Phase 2 and what the EPDP Team is expected to deliberate on. If possible, I am asking the GNSO Council to provide guidance by Friday, 13 March so that the EPDP Team will have time to receive further guidance from Bird & Bird (if applicable). Thank you. Best regards JK ------------------------------ <#_ftnref1>

2 2

REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Tuesday, 17 March 2020
by Julie Bisland 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '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 Tuesday, 17 March 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/wsufp84 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_wsufp84&d=…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/oB_JBw 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

Proposed agenda - EPDP Meeting #48 - 17 March 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '20

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting on Tuesday, 17 March at 14:00 UTC. Reminder of upcoming deadlines: EPDP Team to provide feedback on draft OCTO text via the OCTO Google Doc by Monday, 16 March. EPDP Team to provide feedback on the draft Purpose 2 recommendation via the Purpose 2 Google doc by Tuesday, 17 March. Each EPDP group to provide additional feedback on the Financial consideration questions by Monday, 16 March; please provide feedback using side-bar comments within the Google Doc. Mark Sv. to review Automation Use Case #8 and update the text based on the today’s discussion by Tuesday, 17 March. Matthew Crossman to draft bullet points, regarding the suggestion to send the automation use cases to outside counsel for further guidance on liability and risk, for the Legal Committee’s review, by Tuesday, 17 March. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #48 Proposed Agenda Tuesday, 17 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) 4. Potential OCTO Purpose (priority 2) (15 minutes) Review ‘cannot live with’ comments received, if any Review minor edits received, if any Confirm language for inclusion in the addendum to the Initial Report 5. Accuracy and Whois ARS (priority 2) (15 minutes) (if guidance is received from GNSO Council prior to the meeting) Consider GNSO Council feedback Confirm next steps 6. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): Thursday 19 March at 14.00 UTC. Topics to be addressed: Purpose 2 (Consider Board Liaison input), Automation Use Cases. Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Small Team to continue (Becky, Amr, Volker, Franck, Marc A., Mark Sv, Stephanie, Chris D., ICANN org) 7. Financial consideration questions (60 minutes) Consider feedback from small team on the draft answers EPDP Team feedback Confirm next steps

1 0

High-level notes and action items - ICANN67 EPDP Meeting (2 of 2) - 12 March 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today’s EPDP meeting. The next EPDP meeting will be Tuesday, 17 March at 14:00 UTC. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Purpose 2: Following the EPDP Team’s non-objection to the Board’s proposed update to Purpose 2, EPDP Support Staff to circulate a proposed recommendation for updated Purpose 2 by Friday, 13 March. (complete) EPDP Team to provide feedback via the Google doc by Tuesday, 17 March. The EPDP Team agreed to the draft recommendation text for both the feasibility of unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address and city field redaction. Staff Support to include these draft recommendations in the addendum on Priority 2 items, which will be published for public comment. EPDP Support Staff to highlight within the Financial consideration questions document the specific areas where feedback is requested. Each EPDP group to provide additional feedback on the Financial consideration questions by Monday, 16 March; please provide feedback using side-bar comments within the Google Doc. The Small Team for Financial Considerations will meet on Tuesday, 17 March to discuss feedback received. Mark Sv. to review Automation Use Case #8 and update the text based on the today’s discussion by Tuesday, 17 March. Matthew Crossman to draft bullet points, regarding the suggestion to send the automation use cases to outside counsel for further guidance on liability and risk, for the Legal Committee’s review, by Tuesday, 17 March. Support Staff to provide a draft summary of the automation use cases topic based on today’s discussion by Monday, 16 March.

1 0

Input requested - Purpose 2 and Potential OCTO Purpose
by Marika Konings 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

Dear EPDP Team, Following today’s meeting, please review the following proposed language for inclusion in the addendum to the Initial Report, by the deadline indicated. Similar to finalizing the recommendations for the Initial Report, each group is requested to identify whether there are any ‘cannot live with’ aspects of the text or the recommendations. If there is any ‘cannot live with’ language, please identify the language (and a proposed solution you can live with) by the deadlines indicated below. You may also flag minor edits. Please identify concerns and suggestions using the tables at the bottom of each worksheet. * Purpose 2<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VwslSx0RKXQjf_eJFvQNQ3V0M_37sELl/edit> by 17 March 2020 * Potential OCTO Purpose<https://docs.google.com/document/d/174PSGgWB-UTTcqIA-NndIVDkP6WR701tzwjDsoz…> – deadline: Monday 16 March Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0