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

Reminder of upcoming deadlines
by Marika Konings 27 Jul '20

27 Jul '20

Reminder, please take note of the upcoming deadlines: 1. By COB Monday, 27 July: EPDP Team to continue working on Category 2 items, for which the noted changes are critically important to the requesting group. Groups are encouraged to coordinate within the Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7NQQpXob_2Rmsq5UbNyxtySsJVUUzH4/edit>. Note, that there were also a couple of minor edits (Category 3) were some members have expressed concerns. 2. Tuesday, 28 July: Support Staff to review the Google Doc and flag the Category 2 agreements to the plenary team. 3. By COB Tuesday, 28 July: EPDP Team to review Support Staff’s noted list of agreements and flag if any agreed changes result in “cannot live with” items. (Cannot live items will not be applied to the Final Report.) 4. By Wednesday, 29 July at the latest: EPDP Team Members to respond to Chair’s consensus designation if members believe designation is inaccurate. 5. By Wednesday, 29 July at the latest: EPDP Team Members to provide minority statements. Note that an extension has been provided for those not able to meet this deadline to submit by 24 August at the latest. 6. By Friday, 31 July: Deadline to submit Final Report to GNSO Council. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

FW: Extension of time until August 24, 2020 for Minority Statements
by Kapin, Laureen 25 Jul '20

25 Jul '20

Dear colleagues, Please note our request for more time to complete Minority Statements. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Counsel for International Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission (202) 326-3237 From: Kapin, Laureen Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 12:36 PM To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; 'alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com>; King, Brian (Brian.King(a)markmonitor.com) <Brian.King(a)markmonitor.com>; LEWIS-EVANS, Christopher <Christopher.Lewis-Evans(a)nca.gov.uk>; Georgios.TSELENTIS(a)ec.europa.eu; Manal Ismail (manal(a)tra.gov.eg) <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Subject: Extension of time until August 24, 2020 for Minority Statements Dear Rafik, On behalf of the GAC, ALAC, BC, and IPC, we are requesting until August 24th to submit our Minority Statements. Regrettably, the final stages of this process were quite rushed as stakeholder groups were asked to review, digest, and confer over large amounts of material that raised complex issues. Over the last week, we attempted to identify and prioritize our concerns and resolve the scores of remaining issues. Despite three lengthy meetings, there was not sufficient time to discuss, much less resolve many crucial matters. Notably, we barely discussed the important category of issues that stakeholder groups would like to see changed. There was also considerable confusion over the final resolution of certain issues. As a result, we will need time to carefully review the now final version of the EPDP Report to pinpoint and finalize what will comprise the issues included in our minority statements. Like other stakeholder groups, the GAC has formal procedures for conferring with our members. This is an iterative process that requires time for membership to review proposed text, ask questions, and consider revisions until a final agreement is reached. This task is made more difficult due to the complexity of the subject matter and intervening religious and summer holidays. The Minority Statements are a crucial part of the multistakeholder model and for many groups will be the only opportunity to express and explain their concerns as part of the Final Report. Accordingly, we will need until August 24th to complete this important responsibility. We will try to submit our Minority Statements earlier than that if possible. We appreciate your understanding. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Counsel for International Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission (202) 326-3237

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] PDF redline version updated on wiki
by Marika Konings 24 Jul '20

24 Jul '20

One more thing to note – in a number of cases, text has been moved from footnotes into the text or to another part of the recommendation but it does not appear as moved text but redline instead (in case you are wondering why there is so much redline). Also, there were a couple of late objections to some of the minor edits which as a result have not been applied. Similar to the category 2 items, if your group feels strongly about those, please engage with those that flagged a concern to see if you can come to a common understanding (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7NQQpXob_2Rmsq5UbNyxtySsJVUUzH4/edit). Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 24, 2020 at 18:24 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] PDF redline version updated on wiki Dear EPDP Team, Sarah just pointed out that the pdf version that we posted did not include the redline changes. We have corrected this now (see https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw). As it seems that the word version may not display the same way for everyone, please use the PDF version as your reference point. For transparency, we have added a new table to the end of the google doc where you can flag any issues that we may have overlooked (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7NQQpXob_2Rmsq5UbNyxtySsJVUUzH4/edit). Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

PDF redline version updated on wiki
by Marika Konings 24 Jul '20

24 Jul '20

Dear EPDP Team, Sarah just pointed out that the pdf version that we posted did not include the redline changes. We have corrected this now (see https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw). As it seems that the word version may not display the same way for everyone, please use the PDF version as your reference point. For transparency, we have added a new table to the end of the google doc where you can flag any issues that we may have overlooked (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7NQQpXob_2Rmsq5UbNyxtySsJVUUzH4/edit). Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Final report and consensus designation
by Alan Greenberg 24 Jul '20

24 Jul '20

Hi Rafik, The ALAC is still in the process of assessing our level of support, but at this point, it would be reasonable to indicate our lack of agreement with: 6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability - We are coming to the realization that adherence to this recommendation may end up with pricing so high as to render the SSAD unusable by many of those in its target audience. 18 Evolution mechanism This does not imply that as we further review the new document, there may be changes to the level of consensus of the ALAC. We also note that since the SSAD recommendation are linked, lack of support for critical recommendations implies lack of support for the overall report. Alan At 2020-07-24 06:29 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >Hi all, > > > > > >We are reaching today an important milestone of >our long journey. As promised, I am sharing with >you the consensus designation I made for the policy recommendations. > > > >Following the GNSO Working Group Guidelines >provision, I am sharing here the first iteration >of the consensus designation. Similar to phase >1, I am using a table to identify the consensus >designation for each policy recommendation I >believe has been achieved. The table also >indicates which groups do not appear to support >a recommendation or a part of it. The >designation is based on the outcome of our >latest deliberations this week and I made the >assessment with the âcannot live withâ as an >indicator or where groups have indicated >directly that they do not support certain >recommendations, to select what I think is the appropriate level of consensus. > > > >We managed to resolve the majority of âcannot >live withâ items identified, but unfortunately >we were not able to do that for all. I have used >those âcannot live withâ items that we were >not able to resolve as an indicator. I want also >to highlight that in certain cases the âcannot >live withâ items went to a very specific part >of the recommendation and I have taken a >cautious approach and assumed that this meant a >group is not able to live with the whole >recommendation for the purpose of the consensus >designation. Groups can of course correct that >if it is not an accurate assumption. The >document includes also the relevant provisions >in the GNSO working group guidelines. > > > >As mentioned previously, this is an iterative >process but also not an endless one. So I would >like to ask each group to indicate if they >believe the consensus designation is not the >correct one or the group has been incorrectly >identified or not identified as not supporting >certain recommendations. Please do that asap to >help me to review the received input and make >the necessary updates in a timely manner. I am >hoping that this process will be straightforward >and we all come swiftly to a general >understanding on the consensus designations. The >period of 24 to 29 July is for the EPDP Team to >respond to consensus designations and share its >feedback. For ease of use, you can use the table to share your input. > > > >We tried our best to revolve concerns, reach >agreements within the limits and constraints we >are dealing with. The product is not perfect but >it is the result of a consensus process and a >lot of compromise. Although it would have been >nice if the outcome of PDPs could make everybody >happy and give everyone everything they want, >unfortunately this is not possible, but it is >important that we have a product you can accept >and own. This is not the time for revisions or >re-opening discussions but it is for finalizing >our deliverable. So letâs stay focused. > > > >I do believe that we did what we could do and >deliberated on those topics to the extent of >possible. I acknowledge there are disagreements >and concerns. As I stated during the calls, you >have the opportunity to get them on the record >through the minority statement where you can go >into details and explain your rationale. Even if >you support a consensus position, you can still >provide a statement to make your views heard. I >urge you to submit them by deadline in order to >be included, you donât need to wait for the >29th July to do so. I recognize there may be >some general dissatisfaction with some wanting >more, others wanting less but at the end the >group has come and worked together on delivering >this report. The GNSO council will consider the >final report and recommendations upon reception >and will have to act on. Rest ensured that the >report will be reviewed diligently. > > > >I also acknowledge the frustration that some >have about the remaining priority 2 issues not >being addressed. I can reassure you that the >GNSO Council is looking at how, not if, to >address those topics in a timely manner and >outlining the next steps and timing. It tasked a >small team of councillors to come up with the proposal to be considered. > > > >You can find the final report here: ><https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw>https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw . > > > >Finally and on a less formal note, today was >supposed to be the start of the Olympics game in >Tokyo. Many described our EPDP as a marathon, >definitely at an Olympic level of efforts and >commitment. We are so close to the finishing >line and we should celebrate soon the finalization of this phase. > > > >Best Regards, > > >Rafik >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="Consensus designation table.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table.docx" >Content-ID: <f_kczzgnyk0> >X-Attachment-Id: f_kczzgnyk0 > >_______________________________________________ >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

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #74 - 23 July 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen 23 Jul '20

23 Jul '20

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS 1. Friday, 24 July: Chair to transmit redline of Final Report along with consensus designation. (Note: the redlines will indicate (1) Category 1 (cannot live with) agreements reached during plenary calls<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit> and (2) non-objection to Category 2 and Category 3 items<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7NQQpXob_2Rmsq5UbNyxtySsJVUUzH4/edit>. Please refer to the respective Google Docs, where agreements have been noted. 2. By COB Monday, 27 July: EPDP Team to continue working on Category 2 items, for which the noted changes are critically important to the requesting group. Groups are encouraged to coordinate within the Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7NQQpXob_2Rmsq5UbNyxtySsJVUUzH4/edit>. 3. Tuesday, 28 July: Support Staff to review the Google Doc and flag the Category 2 agreements to the plenary team. 4. By COB Tuesday, 28 July: EPDP Team to review Support Staff’s noted list of agreements and flag if any agreed changes result in “cannot live with” items. (Cannot live items will not be applied to the Final Report.) 5. By Wednesday, 29 July at the latest: EPDP Team Members to respond to Chair’s consensus designation if members believe designation is inaccurate. 6. By Wednesday, 29 July at the latest: EPDP Team Members to provide minority statements. 7. By Friday, 31 July: Deadline to submit Final Report to GNSO Council. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #74 Proposed Agenda Thursday 23 July 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) 1. Expected approach for consensus designation and timeline: From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. Modified timeline: * 22 – 26 July – continuation of online dialogue on category 2 items * 27 July – confirmation in google doc of proposed agreements on category 2 items by staff support team – by 28 July groups to confirm if they cannot live with the proposed agreements (if cannot live, proposed agreements will NOT be applied) * 23 24 July: distribution of Final Report and consensus designations. As a reminder, the Chair will make an evaluation of the support achieved for the recommendations and publish its designation for the group to review. * 243 - 27 29 July: opportunity for EPDP Team to respond to consensus designations, review by Chair of input received, if any, confirmation by Chair of designation. * 27 29 July: deadline for minority statements. * 31 July: No later than date for submission of Final Report to the GNSO Council * We have made some modifications to the proposed timeline to allow some additional breathing room, while sticking with our delivery data of 31 July. * Groups will have until 26 July to continue working in the google doc to resolve category 2 items. As also noted, it will be up to the proponents of category 2 items that have been objected to, to engage with those that have expressed concern to see if a compromise is possible, and if so, this compromise should be clearly marked in the google doc by 26 July at the latest so that other groups can review this before the staff support team applies these to the report. For those category 2 items for which there was no objection, the staff support team has already started applying these to the report and has indicated as such in the google doc. In some cases, Support Staff has reached out to commenters to better understand whether comments were in support or in opposition to what was proposed, so please review the Google doc and respond in a timely manner. * On 27 July, the staff support team will flag items for which compromise language has been found. Should this have created any cannot live with items for groups that may have not been involved in the online dialogue, this needs to be flagged and the edits will not be applied. * Tomorrow, Friday 24 July, I will distribute the updated Final Report in which the minor edits, category 2 items that were not objected to and the resolved category 1 agreements have been applied. If anyone believes changes are in error or that the staff support team may have missed, please indicate as such. * Together with the updated Final Report, I will distribute the proposed consensus designations. As outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines provision that was included in the agenda, this is expected to be an iterative process. Similar to how this was done in phase 1, I am planning to use a table in which I will identify for each recommendation the consensus designation I believe has been achieved, indicating also which groups do not appear to support a recommendation or a part thereof, if any. My designations will be inspired by the outcome of discussions today as well as any cannot live with items that we were not able to resolve yesterday. This is expected to be an iterative process, so if you believe the consensus designation is not the correct one or your group has been incorrectly identified or not identified as not supporting certain recommendations, you are expected to flag this as soon as possible. I will review this input and make any updates deemed appropriate and through this iterative process we will hopefully come to a general understanding on the consensus designations. * Groups have also been given a couple more days to prepare any minority statements you want to see included in the report. Similar to phase 1, these are expected to be included in an Annex to the Final Report. * And then after 29 July, the staff support team will wrap this all up into the Final Report for submission to the GNSO Council. * EPDP Team Feedback: * ALAC will likely be objecting to some recommendations with a conditional acceptance of actions of the GNSO. Chair needs to try to assess consensus on the items that were not addressed. Even though there is no recommendation associated with it, the lack of action should also have a consensus designation. * For consensus designation, each group submitted their consensus designation in writing in Phase 1. It appears there is a different process here. If that is correct, can you provide more details? * For Phase 1, the designation from Kurt was shared. Based on the “cannot live with” items and the subsequent discussion, I will make a designation. The consensus designation message will provide more details. * Consensus designations are reserved for policy recommendations only. * Is it correct that there is an action item for each group to designate their level of consensus on each recommendation? That way, this can be confirmed that the designations in the table are correct. * The consensus table will include what groups support and do not support * With respect to the reference to conditional support for a recommendation – that could be very complicated if conditions are attached to support. If everyone did that, it would be very convoluted – would advise groups not to do this. * Conditional support does raise complications, but some recommendations were rushed through yesterday. 2 options: no consensus or conditional consensus. * Conditional consensus does not exist as a designation – groups are welcome to submit minority statements to express their concerns 4. Finalization of review of cannot live with items: 1. Priority 2 related items * Item #1 * Item #37-41 · See proposed compromise language circulated to the mailing list: Legal/Natural: Although the issue did get some consideration in Phase 2, this did not result in agreement on new policy recommendations. The requested study on this topic was received too late in the process to receive due consideration. As a result, per the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations, Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so. Further work on this issue (including consideration of ICANN org’s Differentiation between Legal and Natural Persons in Domain Name Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS) Study) is under consideration by the GNSO Council.” Feasibility of Unique Contacts: “The EPDP Team received legal guidance that indicated that the publication of uniform masked email addresses results in the publication of personal data; which indicates that wide publication of masked email addresses may not be currently feasible under the GDPR. Further work on this issue is under consideration by the GNSO Council. · This language would also be reflected in the executive summary. · Is there support for including this language or are there concerns that need to be discussed? · Laureen proposed edits to this text, so the text on the screen has been redlined with these proposed edits. · Do not support the GAC edits. On legal v. natural, the staff version was neutral and the edits seem include opinions and feelings. With feasibility of unique contacts, support the staff version, do not agree with redline – this is creative editing of the language that came out of the legal subteam. Do not agree with the added sentence. · Could live with either of these formulations, but is it really accurate to say that the group didn’t agree b/c it didn’t have the report? It would be more accurate to not say that. · Original version is fine; updates are too opinionated. The word “some” before the discussion, should be changed to “substantial” · Support the changes that were made. In the second paragraph should be “advisable” instead of “feasible”. The real issue in question is that it’s not forbidden to publish personal data. It is - are the merits of publication worth the potential impact on the data subject? To say it is not feasible implies it not technically possible, which is incorrect. · The red lines are factual and not based on feelings. Regarding creative interpretations, the language added to the text is direct quotes from the Bird & Bird memo. This issue is nuanced, and this is an important addition that would give further context. · Can those that support the edits live with the original staff version? · Accuracy is not listed here – will there be a separate discussion of that? · For all issues with conclusions, there is an explanation of the status of this item. Aware there are strong views on this, but from a staff perspective – is the Final Report the place to have this conversation? How likely is it the group will agree to how to characterize the issue? It is not included here b/c there is already language in the report re: status of the topic. Groups can write directly to the Council. · Can accept the Legal v. Natural language from staff, but modified version of feasibility (to include text from B&B memo) · Chair’s ruling: use version provided by staff, but acknowledge the disagreement from the group re: the current language · In the staff version, object to second sentence (as a result…) – that implies that we revisited it and confirmed that we support that approach. That is not correct – we need to delete this sentence. 1. Any further items flagged after review of proposed approach for cannot live with items documented in google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit> following 21/22 calls or following review of updated rec #8 language<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10xb5eE3CxTvx5tFNmhsO_F7OdOIRMJFH/edit> * There are not enough hours in the day, given the artificial deadline imposed on us. * Updated rec #8 – note concern expressed by the RrSG * Do not share the concerns the registrars here – missing the reason for the concerns. * Question regarding 8.5 “absent any legal requirements to the contrary” – what purpose is this supposed to serve? Is there a legal requirement to disclose data? Is this suggesting that legal proceedings may be taken to process disclosure requests within the SSAD? This is, at best, confusing. At worst, it is problematic to data subjects. Suggest removing this unless there is a reason that it is there. * No problem with that removal. * Need more time to consider this removal. * If we can all agree that the law will override the policy where there is a conflict, no problem with removing this. * Disagree with this removal * In the course of the team’s work, it is a bad habit to keep repeating that legal obligation of contracted parties needs to trump consensus policy. This should not have to be baked into policy recommendations. Do not understand this provision. * Leave language as is. * GAC flagged item #27 * This text raises concerns with respect to public safety. How will this system get paid for? If fees become high, then it becomes an obstacle for people access RDS information. Echo SSAC input – SSAC 111 – before restrictions on charges of RDS access, there should be a formal assessment on how that will affect users and security. * Item #34 – * Intent of comment on 34 was not to limit the Council’s ability to decide what is policy and what is not. It is only adding new cases for automation. * Proposal from Milton: “The standing committee CAN propose changes that are not policy, and that MAY include disclosure automation”  * This is not supposed to be a modification of language, but rather a statement about what the policy already said. There is nothing in the current policy that says any change would be a possible policy change, but it might be. Do not agree with a categorical statement that any change to disclosure decisions is implementation. * Understand the concern that the group can preordain what is policy and what is implementation. Important that added categories of disclosure are implementation and not policy * Text which was rejected yesterday did not say any recommendation is implementation; it was more specific. Milton’s statement is correct, but irrelevant to this context. Members can choose not to support the recommendation. * Do not disagree with Milton’s language, but do like the “MAY” include. Perhaps consider saying “For clarity, the standing committee CAN propose changes that are not policy, which includes disclosure automation.” * Chair’s ruling: keep language as is 1. Category 2 items (groups to prioritize which items they would like to flag / discuss) 5. Wrap and confirm next steps (5 minutes): * Encourage groups to engage with one another on Cat. 2 items and see if they can come to an agreement. * Action item: engage with those that objected to category 2 items you care deeply about. By Monday at the latest, we will have a clear idea of what Cat. 2 items where an agreement has been reached and indicate clearly which numbers resulted in a change. * The Google doc will indicate clearly which changes were applied. * Staff Support will send out the timeline as well as the link to the Google doc. Encourage groups to prioritize the issues they care about.

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 14:30 UTC
by Andrea Glandon 23 Jul '20

23 Jul '20

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 call held on Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 14:30 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/TwR1C> (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 a 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, Andrea

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #74 - Thursday 23 July at 14.30 UTC
by Marika Konings 23 Jul '20

23 Jul '20

Dear EPDP Team, In relation to agenda item #4a, the Staff Support Team has worked with Rafik on coming up with proposed language to provide a status update on the topics of legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts for inclusion in the Final Report. This write up took as a basis the RySG proposed language (see item #38) with some editorial updates: Legal/Natural: Although the issue did get some consideration in Phase 2, this did not result in agreement on new policy recommendations. The requested study on this topic was received too late in the process to receive due consideration. As a result, per the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations, Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so. Further work on this issue (including consideration of ICANN org’s Differentiation between Legal and Natural Persons in Domain Name Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS) Study) is under consideration by the GNSO Council.” Feasibility of Unique Contacts: “The EPDP Team received legal guidance that indicated that the publication of uniform masked email addresses results in the publication of personal data; which indicates that wide publication of masked email addresses may not be currently feasible under the GDPR. Further work on this issue is under consideration by the GNSO Council. We hope this is a helpful starting point for today’s discussion on this topic. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 00:59 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #74 - Thursday 23 July at 14.30 UTC Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting scheduled for Thursday, 23 July at 14:30 UTC (for 90 minutes). Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #74 Proposed Agenda Thursday 23 July 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) 1. Expected approach for consensus designation and timeline: From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. Modified timeline: * 22 – 26 July – continuation of online dialogue on category 2 items * 27 July – confirmation in google doc of proposed agreements on category 2 items by staff support team – by 28 July groups to confirm if they cannot live with the proposed agreements (if cannot live, proposed agreements will NOT be applied) * 23 24 July: distribution of Final Report and consensus designations. As a reminder, the Chair will make an evaluation of the support achieved for the recommendations and publish its designation for the group to review. * 243 - 27 29 July: opportunity for EPDP Team to respond to consensus designations, review by Chair of input received, if any, confirmation by Chair of designation. * 27 29 July: deadline for minority statements. * 31 July: No later than date for submission of Final Report to the GNSO Council 4. Finalization of review of cannot live with items: 1. Priority 2 related items · Item #1 · Item #37-41 1. Any further items flagged after review of proposed approach for cannot live with items documented in google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit> following 21/22 calls or following review of updated rec #8 language<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10xb5eE3CxTvx5tFNmhsO_F7OdOIRMJFH/edit> 1. Category 2 items (groups to prioritize which items they would like to flag / discuss) * Item #95 * Item #101 5. Wrap and confirm next steps (5 minutes):

3 2

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #74 - Thursday 23 July at 14.30 UTC
by Alan Greenberg 23 Jul '20

23 Jul '20

I support these changes. In regard to the anonymization of contacts, I believe the EPDP erred in that there were discrepancies between what we were proposing and what Bird & Bird analyzed, and the legal memo gave rationales why such anonymization could be beneficial but the EPDP did not attempt to balance the possible release of "personal information" with the resultant benefits. Alan At 2020-07-23 09:33 AM, Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team wrote: >We propose the following edits: > >Legal/Natural: Although the team received legal >guidance and engaged in some preliminary >discussions, the team was not able to agree upon >policy Recommendations. This was due in part >because the study on this topic requested by the >EPDP Phase 1 recommendations was delivered too >late in the process to receive due >consideration. As a result, per the EPDP Phase >1 recommendations, Registrars and Registry >Operators are permitted to differentiate between >registrations of legal and natural persons, but >are not obligated to do so. Further work on this >issue (including consideration of ICANN orgâs >Differentiation between Legal and Natural >Persons in Domain Name Registration Data >Directory Services (RDDS) Study) is under >consideration by the GNSO Council.â > >Feasibility of Unique Contacts: The EPDP Team >received legal guidance that indicated that the >publication of uniform masked email addresses >results in the publication of personal data; >which indicates that wide publication of masked >email addresses may not be currently feasible >under the GDPR. Nevertheless, the legal guidance >recognized that pseudonymization is âa useful >Privacy Enhancing Technique/privacy by design >measure.â Further work on this issue is under >consideration by the GNSO Council. > > > >Kind regards, > >Laureen Kapin >Counsel for International Consumer Protection >Federal Trade Commission >(202) 326-3237 > >From: Gnso-epdp-team ><gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings >Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:14 AM >To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org>; gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - >EPDP Team Meeting #74 - Thursday 23 July at 14.30 UTC > >Dear EPDP Team, > >In relation to agenda item #4a, the Staff >Support Team has worked with Rafik on coming up >with proposed language to provide a status >update on the topics of legal/natural and >feasibility of unique contacts for inclusion in >the Final Report. This write up took as a basis >the RySG proposed language (see item #38) with some editorial updates: > >Legal/Natural: Although the issue did get some >consideration in Phase 2, this did not result in >agreement on new policy recommendations. The >requested study on this topic was received too >late in the process to receive due >consideration. As a result, per the EPDP Phase >1 recommendations, Registrars and Registry >Operators are permitted to differentiate between >registrations of legal and natural persons, but >are not obligated to do so. Further work on this >issue (including consideration of ICANN orgâs >Differentiation between Legal and Natural >Persons in Domain Name Registration Data >Directory Services (RDDS) Study) is under >consideration by the GNSO Council.â > >Feasibility of Unique Contacts: âThe EPDP Team >received legal guidance that indicated that the >publication of uniform masked email addresses >results in the publication of personal data; >which indicates that wide publication of masked >email addresses may not be currently feasible >under the GDPR. Further work on this issue is >under consideration by the GNSO Council. > >We hope this is a helpful starting point for >todayâs discussion on this topic. > >Best regards, > >Caitlin, Berry and Marika > >From: Gnso-epdp-team ><gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of >Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> >Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 00:59 >To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> >Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP >Team Meeting #74 - Thursday 23 July at 14.30 UTC > >Dear EPDP Team, > >Please find below the proposed agenda for the >next EPDP Team meeting scheduled for Thursday, >23 July at 14:30 UTC (for 90 minutes). > >Thank you. > >Best regards, > >Marika, Berry, and Caitlin > > >EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #74 >Proposed Agenda >Thursday 23 July 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) > * Expected approach for consensus designation and timeline: > > > > From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: >The recommended method for discovering the >consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: >i. After the group has discussed an issue long >enough for all issues to have been raised, >understood and discussed, the Chair, or >Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation >and publish it for the group to review. >ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's >estimation of designation, the Chair, or >Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. >iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until >the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. >iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the >use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: >o A decision needs to be made within a time >frame that does not allow for the natural >process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. >o It becomes obvious after several iterations >that it is impossible to arrive at a >designation. This will happen most often when >trying to discriminate between Consensus and >Strong support but Significant Opposition or >between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. > > > > Modified timeline: >a. 22 26 July continuation of online dialogue on cateategory 2 items >b. 27 July coonfirmation in google doc of >proposed agreements on category 2 items by staff >support team by 28 July groups too confirm if >they cannot live with the proposed agreements >(if cannot live, proposed agreements will NOT be applied) >c. 23 24 July: distribution of Final >Report and consensus designations. As a >reminder, the Chair will make an evaluation of >the support achieved for the recommendations and >publish its designation for the group to review. >d. 243 - 27 29 July: opportunity for EPDP >Team to respond to consensus designations, >review by Chair of input received, if any, >confirmation by Chair of designation. >e. 27 29 July: deadline for minority statements. >f. 31 July: No later than date for >submission of Final Report to the GNSO Council > > > >4. Finalization of >review of cannot live with items: > > >a) Priority 2 related items > >Â· Item #1 > >Â· Item #37-41 > > >b) Any further items flagged after review >of proposed approach for cannot live with items >documented ><https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit>in >google doc following 21/22 calls or following >review of ><https://docs.google.com/document/d/10xb5eE3CxTvx5tFNmhsO_F7OdOIRMJFH/edit>updated >rec #8 language > > >c) Category 2 items (groups to prioritize >which items they would like to flag / discuss) >Â· Item #95 >Â· Item #101 > > >5. Wrap and confirm next steps (5 minutes): > > >_______________________________________________ >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

**Call begins in 15 minutes** Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call | Thursday, 23 July 2020
by Andrea Glandon 23 Jul '20

23 Jul '20

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, 23 July 2020 at 14:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom room information: Main Zoom Webinar link: please join via this link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98917212893?pwd=dTRQaEMwK0tweStXTVhpVERsVjdhZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_j_989172…> Password: 953887 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. Before joining the call: Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only Please be sure you have read the Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/TwR1C Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yyxpejwl [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yyxpejwl__;!!PtGJab4!vt_-7HX…> 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…> If you are joining via audio only: iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,98917212893#,,,,,,0#,,953887# or +13462487799,,98917212893#,,,,,,0#,,953887# Dial in directly with your chosen number [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> and provide the following information: Webinar ID: 989 1721 2893 Passcode: 953887 Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0