July 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: [GNSO-EPDP-Lead] Updated: ALAC statement for EPDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 2, 2020

Aug. 2, 2020

We represent only ourselves, or the ALAC if duly appointed, or our home organization if there is one. We make no claim to "represent" the billions of Internet users. We do our best to represent the INTERESTS of Internet users, as best we understand them. We have lots of debate and discussion within At-Large on just what those interests are and how best to defend them. Perhaps once you retire as a registrar, you may choose to join us as many colleagues from other parts of ICANN have. Alan At 2020-07-31 12:18 PM, Volker Greimann wrote: >Just curious: How many billions do you represent? 4 or 5? >And with that I am not even going into mandate >and representation questions.... > >Just asking, >-- >Volker A. Greimann >General Counsel and Policy Manager >KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH > >T: +49 6894 9396901 >M: +49 6894 9396851 >F: +49 6894 9396851 >W: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net > >Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the >local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 >CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner > >Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a >company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. > > >On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:58 AM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Please use the attached reformatted version instead (content identical). > >Alan > >At 2020-07-29 06:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: >>Dear EPDP Team: >> >>Please find attached ALACÃ¢s statement for >>inclusion on in the Final Report. >> >>Best regards, >> >>Marika, Berry, and Caitlin >> >> >>From: Gnso-secs >><<mailto:gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org>gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> >>on behalf of Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:30 AM >>To: GNSO-Secs <<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>gnso-secs(a)icann.org> >>Cc: Hadia El Miniawi >><<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>Hadia(a)tra.gov.eg>, >>ICANN At-Large Staff >><<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, >>Maureen Hilyard <<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> >>Subject: [gnso-secs] ALAC statement for EPDP Final Report >> >> >> >>Please find attached the ALAC statement for >>inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report. >> >>The ALAC reserves the right to revise this >>statement prior to the final submission deadline of 24 August 2020. >> >>Please acknowledge receipt. >> >>I would like to take this opportunity, on my >>behalf and that of Hadia, to thank all staff >>who worked on the EPDP for their superb support and long hours of work. >> >>Alan >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >>_______________________________________________ >>By submitting your personal data, you consent >>to the processing of your personal data for >>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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. >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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.

3 4

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation
by Alan Greenberg July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Thank you Milton, for sharing your wisdom with us. At 2020-07-31 12:05 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >My answer to Becky and Volkerâs question is a >bit different from Alanâs, as you might imagine. > >1. It makes no sense at this point to talk >about which specific recommendations have >consensus or not. There are several SGs or ACs >who didnât get _exactly_ what they wanted in >specific recommendations. We are among them. Too >bad. Petulant children cannot deal with such disappointment; I appreciate your deep psychological insight allowing you to understand and explain the motives behind our actions. I always thought that a prime characteristic of children is their propensity for name-calling. > adults operating in the real world can. We are > all adults here. The issue now is whether one > would vote to pass the entire policy or not. > Itâs binary now. Do you want there to be an > SSAD or not? Pass the report, or not. Do not > entertain the illusion that withholding support > for this or that section will reboot the entire > process and get exactly what you want. Please > do not entertain the corrupt notion that you > can sink this process and then go into > backrooms with national governments or the > ICANN board to make something different come > out of it. You will get this report or you will get nothing. > >2. That vote up or down will notnot >take place here. It will take place in the GNSO >Council. The Council is all that really matters >at this point. That is as it should be, that is >how ICANN is supposed to work. Though they can >participate in PDPs, ACs are advisory and are >not charged with making Names policy. Thank you >for your input, ACs, it was highly influential >and useful. Now we take it to the GNSO. > >3. Alan tries to suggest that the Council >cannot pass recommendations that do not have consensus support No, I did not. I simply pointed out that this was a decision that the Council must take. Not an action that in my recollection it has ever taken before, but my recollection may of course be incorrect. >. See item #1 above. The Council will not be >voting on individual recommendations. It will >vote on the entire report. Based on the current >configuration of the GNSO, there is no doubt >that this report can pass the Council with >Consensus support. The only real opponents on >the Council are IPC and BC, who constitute >merely 2/3 of a single Stakeholder Group. And here you do show insight into motivations for why some of us believed that an evolution mechanism requiring GNSO Council approval might be less than optimal. Council can indeed do what it wants despite the recommendations it gets. Alan > >4. Of course the Board will recognize the >consensus of the GNSO Council. On what basis >would it not? It cannot substitute its own >policy for the one we developed; that violates >the bylaws. The most it can do is send it back >to us. Hmmm, I believe that the Boardâs >connection to reality is sufficiently strong >that it realizes the futility of a send-back. No >holdouts will change their position after >another round in the ring. We are all punch >drunk, nothing is going to change. The EPDP >report and its current consensus designations >are accurate reflections of where different >elements of the community stand on Whois reform. >The preponderance of support is there. Weâve done it. > >Look at this with some perspective. Itâs >actually a bit surprising that a report as >complicated as this, addressing issues as >contentious as this, has as much support as it >does. Surely the board is aware of that. > >Dr. Milton L Mueller >Georgia Institute of Technology >School of Public Policy > > > > > If the GNSO adopts these recommendations (either because > > all the dissenters flip or it decides to adopt recommendations > > with non-consensus support, AND the Board decides that it should > > go ahead (despite the cost, the potential > LONG implementation time, and the belief of > many that it will not meet their needs, then > that's the end game. With "something" in place > or planned, there is no way the GNSO (with 3/4 > SGs basically supporting it) would we revisit this again in our life-times. > >If it fails to proceed, the problems we now have >are still there. Perhaps as the BC/IPC predict, >there may be legislative alternatives. Perhaps >if all this would be was a glorified ticketing >system, then we should just build a ticketing >system. Then at least we have statistics... > >Perhaps the Board will decide that it needs to >understand WHY we are in this position. It >didn't just magically appear in a puff of smoke >- there have been plenty of warning signs. > >Alan > >At 2020-07-30 06:13 PM, Becky Burr wrote: > >I'd love to hear reactions to Volker's question >(If the requestor side does not see this as an >improvement over the status quo, what are we >left with? What is the purpose in building this >SSAD if those who are set to benefit from it do >not seem to want it?) . How should the Board see this? > >On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:26 AM Volker Greimann ><<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: >Conditional support is support in my book. >In my personal opinion, I should again stress >that as CP we are proposing to build this system >for the requestor side, not for ourselves. If >the requestor side does not see this as an >improvement over the status quo, what are we >left with? What is the purpose in building this >SSAD if those who are set to benefit from it do not seem to want it? >We seem to have divergence on Priority Levels, >SLAs and Financial Sustainability. So are we >better off with a system without these and >should strike the recommendations altogether? >As to financing, in the end, we will still have >to figure out how this system is financed and I >doubt the solution ICANN comes up with will be >any different than what we have proposed, >especially since I doubt we will ever agree to >registrants or CPs paying for this. The general >principle of whoever orders the music shall pay >for the band will always apply. >I would therefore like to urge all parties >withholding their support to re-think their >positions and move away from these >all-or-nothing approaches. Having caught a small >fish is better than not catching a fish at all. >Best, >-- >Volker A. Greimann >General Counsel and Policy Manager >KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH >T: +49 6894 9396901 >M: +49 6894 9396851 >F: +49 6894 9396851 >W: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net >Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the >local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 >CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner >Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a >company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. > >On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:36 PM Thomas Rickert ><<mailto:epdp@gdpr.ninja>epdp(a)gdpr.ninja> wrote: >All, sorry itÃ¢s me again. >Rafik just pointed out to me that he has written >about conditional support in his e-mail. That is >true and I should have mentioned that. However, >conditional support is nothing that GNSO rules >know as a term and the cautious interpretation >thereof by the Chair is also nothing that the >rules know. We will see how this plays out, but >- I would prefer for objections and support to >be unambiguous so that the chairÃ¢s >designatiation is made easier (and less prone to be complained about) >- conditional support might be interpreted less >cautiously as objections, particularly if there >is more movement on the level of support before the deadline. >Best, >Thomas > > >Am 30.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Rickert ><<mailto:epdp@gdpr.ninja>epdp(a)gdpr.ninja>: >Hi Rafik, all, >I hope you forgive me for writing a few lines in >my personal capacity. These are not ISPCP >comments, but I will point out that the ISPCP >does not object to any of the recommendations in >the spirit of collaboration and to support the >work we have done. Are we happy with everything >in the report, certainly not, but we are where >we are. We know this is a challenging topic from >a legal and a policy perspective and we all have >to trust in the system to be improved over time >when there will be more trust in such system and less areas that are unknown. >Looking at the number of objections is quite >shocking. We only have full consensus on 1 recommendation. A few quick points: >1. How shall a system be implemented / >operationalised absent a recommendation on >financial sustainability? We have divergence >there, which means that we have nothing for the Council or ICANN Org to lean. >2. Accuracy was taken off the table by the GNSO >Council, so I am not sure whether it is adequate >wo withhold support for recommendations because >the accuracy part has not been worked on. Many >ISPCP members have an interest in the accuracy >discussion, but that will be dealt with elsewhere. >3. Recommendation 18 is bordering divergence. >The system will only get better if there is a >good process for making it better within the >boundaries of what can be done under GNSO rules. >I think the compromise that was struck is a good >basis for that. Changes to the system will be >even harder if there is no good support for Rec. 18. >4. Question for Rafik: How will you deal with >conditional support? As far as I know the rules, >there is nothing describing conditional support. >Will you consider these as objections? That >would change the landscape, in particular with respect to Rec. 18. >Thanks for reading thus far. >Best, >Thomas > > > >Am 30.07.2020 um 12:07 schrieb Rafik Dammak ><<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com >: >Hi all, >Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation >and sending by the deadline your input to >indicate support or objection to >recommendations. I revised the consensus >designation based on what was received by the deadline. >I will give 24 hours for final review to check >the revised consensus designation, 31st July >12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish >attaching the different pieces for the final >report by the deadline. I would like to >emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding >ALAC conditional support for SSAD related >recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously >interpreted them as opposition for several >reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with >this designation, they can share their input by the deadline. >I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working >group guidelines covering such cases. I also >cannot recall similar precedents in previous >GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is >supposed to be final at the time of publication >and report submission and shouldnÃ¢t¢t be >amended when moving to GNSO council review since >they are to some extent the basis for council >decision on approving or not. The GNSO council >will review the report and policy >recommendations in order to make a decision. I >will highlight in my communication by the time >of submission and during the presentation of the >report the positions indicated by the groups >regarding consensus and their minority >statements. I understand the intent and request >for consideration made to GNSO council but >procedures didnÃ¢t envision such a situation >of having consensensus designation in undecided >or pending state and in my role as chair or >council liaison I am bound to follow the >procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions. >On a separate note, in order to close out final >issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last >message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On >recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest >language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the >RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have >concluded that BC doesnÃ¢t agree to to drop >the footnote and as result I have taken note of >the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation. >Best Regards, >Rafik ><Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 >.docx>_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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. > > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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. >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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. >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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. > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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.

1 0

Final Report
by Rafik Dammak July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

hi all, The deadline to review the revised consensus designation already passed and I don't see any strong objection in the list to what I shared initially or to the revised table I sent several hours ago. I want to emphasize that I did that assessment based on direct input from the groups and with my understanding of GNSO WG guidelines. I attached the final report which includes the consensus designation and all minority statements received till now. I will send in the coming hours the report to the council and I will add details in my communication about deadline extension for the minority statement as requested. For those who want to add their minority statements, the deadline is the 24th August and the report will be revised regularly to attach them and note sent to indicate the revision. I want to thank you all for the work done and deliberations in the 2 years between phase 1 and phase 2, during the too many and long conference calls or F2F meetings or small teams and legal committee (Berry got the correct numbers about the hours spent!). I would like to thank the support staff for their tireless help and work, making this process smooth as much as possible. I want also to thank Janis as he chaired most of the phase 2 and facilitated the process. I know that all of you made sacrifice in term of time and efforts and it is important to reach closure. The outcome of consensus oriented process is not always perfect but it has that important element that everyone participated in shaping it. Best regards, Rafik

5 4

FW: [GNSO-EPDP-Lead] Updated: ALAC statement for EPDP Final Report
by Caitlin Tubergen July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find attached ALAC’s statement for inclusion in the Final Report. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:30 AM To: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Cc: Hadia El Miniawi <Hadia(a)tra.gov.eg>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> Subject: [gnso-secs] ALAC statement for EPDP Final Report Please find attached the ALAC statement for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report. The ALAC reserves the right to revise this statement prior to the final submission deadline of 24 August 2020. Please acknowledge receipt. I would like to take this opportunity, on my behalf and that of Hadia, to thank all staff who worked on the EPDP for their superb support and long hours of work. Alan

3 2

[GNSO-ePDP-Team] Changes to SSAC consensus designations
by Ben Butler July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Dear Rafik, Staff, and ePDP team, Per the deadline for consensus designations, the SSAC EPDP Work Party has reviewed and discussed the finalized language and would like to flag that we cannot support, as written, the following four recommendations. Please update the listed consensus designations accordingly. A brief rationale is provided for each, and we will provide more information in a minority statement including the nuances of where each recommendation falls short of achieving our support even if the intent was aligned with addressing our concerns. Beyond further information on these particular recommendations, that minority statement will contain concerns about some of the other recommendations that we can support, as well as our overall concerns with issues that remain unaddressed that the EPDP was originally chartered to handle. The SSAC’s EPDP team decisions on support/non-support for various recommendations are based on issues that were previously identified and documented in SAC101v2 and more recently SAC111 which contain the full SSAC consensus on those issues. * Recommendation 6: Priority Levels * We do not feel that operational and network security investigations should be seen as Priority 3 with the corresponding SLA. Things like phishing and malware attacks need to be resolved much more quickly than this would promote. * Recommendation 10: Determining Variable SLAs for response times for SSAD * Having SLAs for requests like Priority 3 go from 5 days to 10 days in Phase 2 is moving the needle in the wrong direction. The hope should be to strive for improvements that will make legitimate requests through the SSAD more efficient, not less. * Recommendation 12: Disclosure Requirement * The language in this Recommendation allows a disclosing party to provide a data subject with the identity of the specific entity making a request for the RDS data. The disclosing party should be prohibited from revealing the identity of a data requestor unless the data requestor goes through appropriate legal process. 1) The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told ICANN Org that revealing requestor data to data subjects is a problem. 2) Revealing the identities of requestors will compromise investigations, including those of law enforcement, and may place some data requestors in danger. 3) Per GDPR and the Temp Spec, it is sufficient for data controllers to inform data subjects about the types of groups to whom disclosure may occur. * Recommendation 14: Financial Sustainability * SSAC has several issues with the this Recommendation. We share concerns flagged in this consensus designation process by the ALAC, as well as concerns previously noted in SAC101v2 and more recently SAC111. Thank you to all for the diligent efforts thus far, and we look forward in good faith to continuing to support and improve the SSAD. Thank You. Ben Butler (on behalf of the SSAC ePDP Work Party)

3 2

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation
by Alan Greenberg July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

I'll be rash (or stupid) enough to try to answer. I think that looking at it from the other side is useful. If the GNSO adopts these recommendations (either because all the dissenters flip or it decides to adopt recommendations with non-consensus support, AND the Board decides that it should go ahead (despite the cost, the potential LONG implementation time, and the belief of many that it will not meet their needs, then that's the end game. With "something" in place or planned, there is no way the GNSO (with 3/4 SGs basically supporting it) would we revisit this again in our life-times. If it fails to proceed, the problems we now have are still there. Perhaps as the BC/IPC predict, there may be legislative alternatives. Perhaps if all this would be was a glorified ticketing system, then we should just build a ticketing system. Then at least we have statistics... Perhaps the Board will decide that it needs to understand WHY we are in this position. It didn't just magically appear in a puff of smoke - there have been plenty of warning signs. Alan At 2020-07-30 06:13 PM, Becky Burr wrote: >I'd love to hear reactions to Volker's question >(If the requestor side does not see this as an >improvement over the status quo, what are we >left with? What is the purpose in building this >SSAD if those who are set to benefit from it do >not seem to want it?) . How should the Board see this? > >On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:26 AM Volker Greimann ><<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: >Conditional support is support in my book. > >In my personal opinion, I should again stress >that as CP we are proposing to build this system >for the requestor side, not for ourselves. If >the requestor side does not see this as an >improvement over the status quo, what are we >left with? What is the purpose in building this >SSAD if those who are set to benefit from it do not seem to want it? > >We seem to have divergence on Priority Levels, >SLAs and Financial Sustainability. So are we >better off with a system without these and >should strike the recommendations altogether? >As to financing, in the end, we will still have >to figure out how this system is financed and I >doubt the solution ICANN comes up with will be >any different than what we have proposed, >especially since I doubt we will ever agree to >registrants or CPs paying for this. The general >principle of whoever orders the music shall pay >for the band will always apply. > >I would therefore like to urge all parties >withholding their support to re-think their >positions and move away from these >all-or-nothing approaches. Having caught a small >fish is better than not catching a fish at all. > >Best, > >-- >Volker A. Greimann >General Counsel and Policy Manager >KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH > >T: +49 6894 9396901 >M: +49 6894 9396851 >F: +49 6894 9396851 >W: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net > >Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the >local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 >CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner > >Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a >company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. > > >On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:36 PM Thomas Rickert <epdp(a)gdpr.ninja> wrote: >All, sorry itâs me again. > >Rafik just pointed out to me that he has written >about conditional support in his e-mail. That is >true and I should have mentioned that. However, >conditional support is nothing that GNSO rules >know as a term and the cautious interpretation >thereof by the Chair is also nothing that the >rules know. We will see how this plays out, but > >- I would prefer for objections and support to >be unambiguous so that the chairâs designation >is made easier (and less prone to be complained about) > >- conditional support might be interpreted less >cautiously as objections, particularly if there >is more movement on the level of support before the deadline. > >Best, >Thomas > >>Am 30.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Rickert >><<mailto:epdp@gdpr.ninja>epdp(a)gdpr.ninja>: >> >>Hi Rafik, all, >>I hope you forgive me for writing a few lines >>in my personal capacity. These are not ISPCP >>comments, but I will point out that the ISPCP >>does not object to any of the recommendations >>in the spirit of collaboration and to support >>the work we have done. Are we happy with >>everything in the report, certainly not, but we >>are where we are. We know this is a challenging >>topic from a legal and a policy perspective and >>we all have to trust in the system to be >>improved over time when there will be more >>trust in such system and less areas that are unknown. >> >>Looking at the number of objections is quite >>shocking. We only have full consensus on 1 recommendation. A few quick points: >> >>1. How shall a system be implemented / >>operationalised absent a recommendation on >>financial sustainability? We have divergence >>there, which means that we have nothing for the Council or ICANN Org to lean. >> >>2. Accuracy was taken off the table by the GNSO >>Council, so I am not sure whether it is >>adequate wo withhold support for >>recommendations because the accuracy part has >>not been worked on. Many ISPCP members have an >>interest in the accuracy discussion, but that will be dealt with elsewhere. >> >>3. Recommendation 18 is bordering divergence. >>The system will only get better if there is a >>good process for making it better within the >>boundaries of what can be done under GNSO >>rules. I think the compromise that was struck >>is a good basis for that. Changes to the system >>will be even harder if there is no good support for Rec. 18. >> >>4. Question for Rafik: How will you deal with >>conditional support? As far as I know the >>rules, there is nothing describing conditional >>support. Will you consider these as objections? >>That would change the landscape, in particular with respect to Rec. 18. >> >>Thanks for reading thus far. >> >>Best, >>Thomas >> >> >>>Am 30.07.2020 um 12:07 schrieb Rafik Dammak >>><<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>>Hi all, >>> >>>Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation >>>and sending by the deadline your input to >>>indicate support or objection to >>>recommendations. I revised the consensus >>>designation based on what was received by the deadline. >>> >>>I will give 24 hours for final review to check >>>the revised consensus designation, 31st July >>>12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish >>>attaching the different pieces for the final >>>report by the deadline. I would like to >>>emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding >>>ALAC conditional support for SSAD related >>>recommendations, unfortunately I have >>>cautiously interpreted them as opposition for >>>several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC >>>disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline. >>> >>>I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working >>>group guidelines covering such cases. I also >>>cannot recall similar precedents in previous >>>GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is >>>supposed to be final at the time of >>>publication and report submission and >>>shouldnât be amended when moving to GNSO >>>council review since they are to some extent >>>the basis for council decision on approving or >>>not. The GNSO council will review the report >>>and policy recommendations in order to make a >>>decision. I will highlight in my communication >>>by the time of submission and during the >>>presentation of the report the positions >>>indicated by the groups regarding consensus >>>and their minority statements. I understand >>>the intent and request for consideration made >>>to GNSO council but procedures didnât >>>envision such a situation of having consensus >>>designation in undecided or pending state and >>>in my role as chair or council liaison I am >>>bound to follow the procedures. I cannot >>>guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions. >>> >>>On a separate note, in order to close out >>>final issues, can RrSG can respond to >>>Laureen's last message on PPSAI >>>(recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I >>>took the note of the latest language agreed by >>>RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of >>>the recommendation. I have concluded that BC >>>doesnât agree to drop the footnote and as >>>result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation. >>> >>>Best Regards, >>> >>>Rafik >>> >>><Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 >>>.docx>_______________________________________________ >>>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >>><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >>>_______________________________________________ >>>By submitting your personal data, you consent >>>to the processing of your personal data for >>>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >>>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >>>and the website Terms of Service >>>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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

GAC Response to Consensus Designations
by Kapin, Laureen July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Hi folks, Attached is the GAC's response to the Chair's Consensus Designations. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Counsel for International Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission (202) 326-3237

2 1

Revised Consensus Designation
by Rafik Dammak July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

Hi all, Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline. I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline. I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldn’t be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didn’t envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions. On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesn’t agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation. Best Regards, Rafik

4 4

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation
by Alan Greenberg July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC): 6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability 18 Evolution mechanism You may indicate support for the other recommendations. The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant. As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report. PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE. Alan At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >Hi all, > >Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation >and sending by the deadline your input to >indicate support or objection to >recommendations. I revised the consensus >designation based on what was received by the deadline. > >I will give 24 hours for final review to check >the revised consensus designation, 31st July >12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish >attaching the different pieces for the final >report by the deadline. I would like to >emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding >ALAC conditional support for SSAD related >recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously >interpreted them as opposition for several >reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with >this designation, they can share their input by the deadline. > >I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working >group guidelines covering such cases. I also >cannot recall similar precedents in previous >GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is >supposed to be final at the time of publication >and report submission and shouldnâ?Tt be amended >when moving to GNSO council review since they >are to some extent the basis for council >decision on approving or not. The GNSO council >will review the report and policy >recommendations in order to make a decision. I >will highlight in my communication by the time >of submission and during the presentation of the >report the positions indicated by the groups >regarding consensus and their minority >statements. I understand the intent and request >for consideration made to GNSO council but >procedures didnâ?Tt envision such a situation of >having consensus designation in undecided or >pending state and in my role as chair or council >liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I >cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions. > >On a separate note, in order to close out final >issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last >message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On >recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest >language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the >RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have >concluded that BC doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the >footnote and as result I have taken note of the >NCSG opposition in the consensus designation. > >Best Regards, > >Rafik > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" >Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0> >X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0 > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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.

4 5

FW: [Ext] IPC/BC minority statement
by Caitlin Tubergen July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached the joint minority statement of the IPC and BC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin From: "Journoud, Franck" <Franck_Journoud(a)motionpictures.org> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 5:03 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: "King, Brian" <Brian.King(a)markmonitor.com>, "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv(a)microsoft.com>, Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "Deacon, Alex" <alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com> Subject: [Ext] IPC/BC minority statement Dear colleagues, Please find attached the joint minority statement of the IPC and BC on the Phase 2 final report. This statement includes a list of the recommendations we support or oppose, to assist the consensus designation process. Best, -Franck Franck Journoud Vice President, Technology Policy E franck_journoud(a)motionpictures.org<mailto:franck_journoud@motionpictures.org> O (202) 378-9127 | M (202) 285-7322 MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION 1600 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete and/or destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments.

2 1