May 2021 - Gnso-epdp-team - lists.icann.org

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 24 May '21

24 May '21

Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Observers are able to join via zoom webinar. 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 ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/4QSlCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/cthvbs2c [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/cthvbs2c__;!!PtGJab4!vPdO-5_…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A | Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon 20 May '21

20 May '21

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A call held on Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/6ISUCQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…>. 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

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2A Meeting #24 - 20 May 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen 20 May '21

20 May '21

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. As a reminder, the next EPDP Phase 2A meeting will be Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin 🚨🚨🚨 Action Items 🚨🚨🚨 Please refer to the project spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…> for action items. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #24 Proposed Agenda Thursday 20 May 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) * Please take note of the Initial Report template that was distributed yesterday * The substantive portion of the report is still being worked on using separate documents * Reminder of the hard deadline of the 31 May for publication of the Initial Report * In his message, Keith has noted that there will not be minority statements in the Initial Report; any outstanding areas of disagreement will be reflected in the report and posed as questions. Groups may submit their minority statements as public comments or preserve them for the Final Report * There will be an update from Keith and Philippe during today’s Council call re: the status of EPDP Phase 2A 3. Feasibility of unique contacts (15 minutes) 1. Whether or not unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address is feasible, and if feasible, whether it should be a requirement. 2. If feasible, but not a requirement, what guidance, if any, can be provided to Contracted Parties who may want to implement uniform anonymized email addresses. * Questions to be considered by the EPDP Team Note, in a number of instances suggestions were made by some members of the team, which others objected to. Those items have been flagged as changes not applied in the redline version – EPDP Team members are encouraged to reach out to each other to see if a compromise can be reached and communicate these back to the full team for consideration. 1. No specific proposals have been put forward in relation to the topic of web-forms. Various approaches have been suggested during previous calls such as providing guidance to phase 1 IRT, referring this issue back to the GNSO Council for further consideration, not making any reference here but direct those that have expressed concern about web-forms to the phase 1 IRT and/or ICANN compliance from which the issue can be escalated, if necessary. o Which approach should the EPDP Team follow for the purpose of the Initial Report? o Are there any volunteers that would be willing to write up a proposal on the agreed approach on this topic for the EPDP Team to consider? * Alan G. to work with Mark Sv. on a draft proposal by tomorrow’s deadline * Uncomfortable that this in included at all – this is out of scope for this team’s work. Impress upon the leadership to consider what is in scope. If the webform is not working, complaints should be raised through the proper channels. Due to the tight timeline, we should not be increasing the scope. * Any diverging views can be included in the Initial Report * This is in scope because we were asked to determine Phase 1 recommendations. * Part of the reason that some stakeholders are noting that pseudonymous emails are necessary is because the current implementation of webforms does not facilitate communication with the registrant. * The scope of this group is not to revisit every recommendation in Phase 1 – just rec. 17. Please see the relevant comment in the chat. * If we ask for public feedback on an item that will ultimately be ignored, that would be tone deaf. * Web forms are not working very well because the sender cannot be sure that the email would be forwarded. Email, if it is addressed to the registrant via the registrar will lead to a lot of spam. This pseudonymous email is trying to achieve a way of reaching the registrant and cross-correlating emails. This is a separate issue that needs to be addressed separately. * If the group believes the Council should undertake further work on this topic, the group could not this. * This group is trying to fix two problems that were not addressed in Phase 1. If pseudonymous emails are not going to be further considered, the group needs to ensure that web forms actually work as intended. * Confirm next steps – EPDP Team to review updated version of write up and flag any comments or suggested edits in the form of comments to the document by Friday 21 May. * Team to consider specific proposals provided by the deadline of tomorrow, Friday, 21 May. 4. Legal vs. natural (45 minutes) 1. Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“); 2. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. Consensus policy question write up * Staff walk through of updated recommendation concerning standardized data element. * Following Tuesday’s call, the Support Team included additional text for the Team to consider regarding a possible data element. * On Tuesday, staff walked through the Phase 1 work on workbooks, purpose 3, and the minimum public data set. * While the approach of analyzing data processing helpful, the group fell short with the use of optional, and this is something the IRT is still trying to recover from. * For this text, we are using more specific terms of MUST, MUST IF, or MAY * Here, there is a new data element entitled “registrant legal person,” and there are three options that make up that data element, “yes” “no” or “unspecified”. MAY means registrars will be able to choose if they will allow the registrant to self-designate as a legal person. IF the data element is processed, need to consider the proceeding downstream. The further text goes into the transfer (to registries and data escrow agents) and display. * Initial feedback & reactions from EPDP Team * This field should be considered for purposes of sharing with the SSAD. * Agree this field should be shared with the SSAD * In terms of “if collected,” we’re not on track to specify specific requirements * There are 3 options to this flag – if the RNH does check the box that they are a legal person, that would flip the flag to “yes”. If there is option for a natural person, and that is checked, it would be “no”. If there is nothing in the field, it is probably an indicator that the registrar is not offering the field. * Suggest changing legal person to legal entity. For the policy matter, because there is an unspecified field, we would like this to be mandatory. * Seems as though all comments registries submitted were ignored, though the feedback will likely be recycled. This seems to be asking the wrong question – the question is does the registration data contain information related to a natural person. Making it MUST IF COLLECTED to transfer from the registrar to the registry makes it no longer optional for a registry. This is unlikely to be supported in the registry comments. * Many of us believe that this is an important field. This may not be a definitive field, but it is important to many. There is also a recommendation that says “please publish all of my data”. This is akin to that recommendation with a different flavor. In terms of a registry having to add this – it is really adding to a database table, it is not a particularly onerous requirement. * Registries disagree that this is not an onerous requirement * Confirm next steps - EPDP Team to review updated version of write up and flag any comments or suggested edits in the form of comments to the document by Friday 21 May. * Welcome input on the document by COB tomorrow. Guidance write up – outstanding issues * In light of ICANN org input on how guidance/best practices would be implemented by ICANN org (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2021-May/003904.html) is there: 1. Any need for further updates in relation to EPDP Team expectations for implementation of guidance / best practices or is it sufficient to point to this response to clarify how guidance / best practice recommendations would be treated? 2. Any need to further consider possible incentives for CPs to follow this guidance, noting that some concerns were previously expressed that “linking of acceptance of risk to the data rights of registrants in exchange for certain incentives, especially monetary in value” could be problematic? Is this a potential question for which input can be sought during the public comment forum? * Incentives are not a mandate of the EPDP – this seems to be a contractual negotiation. The only enforcement part is if we recommend the new data element, that is policy. 1. No indication has been provided that there would be a difference in treatment between guidelines/guidance/best practices – what term should be used in the Initial Report? 5. Homework assignments reminder · By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review the updated LvN consensus question i write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_k0hVA6c2SvQPLiaZAlUllTKdplssofYlRHDkeR…). Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments. · By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review updated version of feasibility of unique contacts write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wpZWZzCNcDsAYuy3FqxV67POgDV2hrOvrwGa3kj…). Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments. Next steps / Timeline reminder https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad… 6. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): 1. EPDP Team Meeting #25 Tuesday 25 May at 14.00 UTC 2. Confirm action items 3. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon 20 May '21

20 May '21

Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Observers are able to join via zoom webinar. 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 ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/4QSlCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/cthvbs2c The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Initial Report posted
by Caitlin Tubergen 19 May '21

19 May '21

Dear EPDP Team, The Support Staff Team has uploaded the Initial Report<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10fnhz7FvAGU069sGop_sQ2L-iZ6GVpurMAVWXsC…> into the EPDP Team Google Folder<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG>. As Berry noted during yesterday’s call, the Initial Report includes all of the requisite sections, but the substance of the Team’s recommendations/guidance has not been included as we are working through those sections via separate documents. As a reminder, you can find all current documents under review in the EPDP Team Google Folder<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG>. Staff regularly archives the older versions that are no longer under review. For now, we recommend concentrating on this week’s homework<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…>, but we wanted to alert you that the partially-completed Initial Report has been posted for anyone who is interested. Thank you! Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 19 May '21

19 May '21

Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Observers are able to join via zoom webinar. 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 ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/6ISUCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2m7fun4f [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2m7fun4f__;!!PtGJab4!okIpbJM…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Chair Update - 18 May
by Drazek, Keith 18 May '21

18 May '21

Dear EPDP Team, Following today's plenary call, and looking ahead to the finalization of our Initial Report for public comment, here are a few quick updates: 1. Public Comment Period - During today's call, it was noted that the public comment period would be open for the traditional 40 days, and a question was posed whether this timeframe would account for the week of ICANN 71. If the group thinks it's needed, we could extend the public comment period by 5 days to accommodate the overlap. That said, with ICANN 71 taking place remotely with no travel and the scheduling not quite as intense as a traditional F2F public forum, there shouldn't be a significant impact on the community's ability to provide comments in a timely fashion. We have also requested an ICANN 71 session for an update to the community on our Initial Report. 2. Minority Statements - During today's call, a question was raised about whether minority statements may be included in the Initial Report. After checking with our staff colleagues, it's my understanding that minority statements are reserved for inclusion in the Final Report, once a final consensus call has been made and individuals or groups elect to make a statement highlighting their disagreement with the Final Report's recommendations. Minority statements were not included in the EPDP Phase 1 and Phase 2 Initial Reports and I don't recall other instances from other PDPs where they were. Therefore, we will reserve any minority statements, if needed, for the Final Report. Alternatively, for groups who wish to provide additional input or share dissenting views, I would encourage those to be submitted as a public comment early in the public comment period. 3. Timeline - Our delivery date of 31 May has been long-established, communicated and understood, so we will continue working toward that date for finalization and publication of the Initial Report. For any remaining items where consensus has not been reached by that date, we can put those out for public comment in the form of questions for community feedback. If we need an extra day or two for last-minute cleanup, that's ok, but I am not inclined to substantially extend the work of our group for publication of the Initial Report. Any meaningful extension would require a Project Change Request (PCR) submitted to Council, and there's no guarantee we'd receive the Council's support for an extension at this time. It turns out May 31 is an ICANN Org holiday, so our publication will be June 1. 4. ICANN Org/Implementation - If you haven't already reviewed it, please refer to Brian Gutterman's 17 May email to the EPDP Team list covering ICANN Org's views on the range of implementation options for EPDP Phase 2A recommendations. 5. GNSO Council Update - On Thursday this week, I will provide an update to the GNSO Council indicating our progress, timeline and general state of the group's discussions on legal/natural and feasibility of unique identifiers. I will note that our work today is focused primarily on voluntary guidance and not on new consensus policy recommendations. 6. Thursday's Plenary - Unfortunately, both Brian and I are unavailable on Thursday to Chair the plenary call. Fortunately, you'll be in good hands with Philippe as Chair and our staff colleagues providing their consistently excellent support. 7. Homework - Please refer to the agenda circulated by Staff to prepare for Thursday's plenary call, and focus specifically on the homework assigned. This is a critical time and it's very important everyone provides concrete suggestions and proposed text so we can finalize the Initial Report. Thanks to all. We're making progress and I'm confident we will publish an Initial Report for public comment that generates meaningful feedback from the community. Best, Keith

1 0

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2A Meeting #23 - 18 May 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen 18 May '21

18 May '21

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…> from today’s EPDP Phase 2A meeting. The next EPDP Phase 2A meeting will be Thursday, 20 May at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin 🚨🚨🚨 Action Items 🚨🚨🚨 Please refer to the project spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…> for action items. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #23 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 18 May 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) * Leadership and Support Staff have been working on a timeline to get the group to the end of May. We will share this at the end of the call. 3. Legal vs. natural (45 minutes) 1. Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“); 2. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. Consensus policy question write up * Questions to be considered by the EPDP Team: 1. Some have suggested that recommendation #1 (“GNSO Council to monitor developments…”) does not seem to rise to the level of a recommendation as it is already something that the Council is expected to do. If the intent is to signal that there should be a formal process to trigger reopening deliberation on this topic, the recommendation should state so explicitly. o Should the EPDP Team consider adding a more explicit trigger that would require the Council to reopen consideration of this topic? If yes, what should this trigger be and who/how would it be determined that this trigger is met? * There is an interplay between legal v. natural and the question hanging in the background as to whether SSAD will come along in a timely and effective fashion. If everyone would agree, would like to see wording in here related to the idea of trigger. Having a high level and attention and concern about forward progress here; if there is no progress, it changes how one views the output of this working group. * If in six months, there is not clear forward progress and confidence-building events, that would be bad news. 1-2 years would be too far off. In terms of timing, would want to see something to confirm confidence and forward progress by six months as the outer limit. * Adoption of the NIS2 should be a triggering event. * If we do a timeframe, it should be every six months – not just in six months. Would not agree to a single time. Another trigger to look at is if NIS2 passes – it’s not clear that we need a PDP to address NIS2 because there is nothing in the current policy that will prevent CPs from complying with NIS2, but it would result in a very uneven playing field. * It should be a combination of both – event triggered and an associated timeframe, whichever happens first. For example, the timeframe is set to a year, but if a specifically identified event happens before that, the topic could be reopened. * GNSO should already be looking out for these things – the question the group needs to think about is how we are going to cleanly scope a PDP. We can recommend to the Council to continually monitor but keeping an EPDP open is something the group should be very wary of. * Remind the group that if a separate policy is needed – have to start from scratch. Because of this, it makes sense to specifically call out the NIS2 as a triggering event. * A reference to NIS2 is appropriate and is an important consideration but limiting the trigger to NIS2 is probably too stringent. The question is how do we reengage? That question is ultimately up to the GNSO Council. If the EPDP is paused until a triggering event, it will still be a GNSO question. There is a good argument for bringing this group to a close and giving the community a fresh start on this. * Team should focus on decisions proposed in NIS2 that if they come to pass would trigger a renewed look at the questions. NIS2, as it currently stands, is too vague to be a trigger. * Why do we need this instead of WHOIS review team procedure continuing along? Could this not be picked up in a WHOIS review 3? If there is a specific reference to NIS2, then you have to put a reference to data protection law changes. * The Board has chosen to ignore the 6-month review for RDS 2. * Homework assignment to come up with a language for specific triggers. 2. Some have indicated disagreement with the inclusion of recommendation #2 (“ICANN org must implement the capability for Contracted Parties to use a standardized data element in the registration data……”) as it is not ‘in any way necessary for the delivery of the service” nor does it “seem to serve any useful purpose to the data subject and may be doing harm by exposing additional information about the data subject”. However, as other comments noted, the EPDP Team has not considered yet if/how this additional data element would be treated (redacted / non-redacted) nor is it clear who/how such a data element could be standardized. o If the EPDP Team would agree that a standardized data element must be added, how would this work in practice? Is this an ICANN org responsibility, would it require changes to existing policy recommendations (e.g. CL&D), would this require work by other bodies, e.g. IETF? * ICANN must implement the capability for CPs – it’s not an implementation, exactly. It’s an addition to the data dictionary. Whether or not there is an implementation issue is whether or not a registrar chooses to designate – there is split here between defining the concept and implementing it. Would suggest changing the wording to “define the capability” but not necessarily impose the implementation. Whether or not this needs to be passed through the IETF – probably, but ICANN should take the lead on this. * If a registrar wants to make a distinction and has a flag, there is not a requirement for a registry to do anything about it. This doesn’t make sense in an optional sense. Having a standardized field is important, but it should be mandatory. * We have a situation today where contents of RDS fields for thick registries may vary considerably between what the registry shows vs. what the registrar shows. Do not know why we are agonizing over this. The data dictionary is currently sitting in contracts. Do not understand why we don’t go back and revise the Phase 1 recommendations re: the fields. * Confused around the language “ICANN org must implement” * Re: the data dictionary – the data dictionary for WHOIS is in the contracts. For RDAP, the replacement, that is defined in a profile. That profile was developed jointly by ICANN and Contracted Parties and clearly defines all of the fields. There are too many questions about how this would be implemented. RySG is not supportive of adding this field to the RDDS output. This could add confusion and open up data subjects to having additional data disclosed about them which doesn’t make sense. * One distinction is the difference between a standardized data element that is data collected and a standardized data element that CPs would have or use. The next step would be to have this as a data element itself rather than a data element used internally by a registrar. * Whether a field in the RDDS is displayed publicly would need to be specified here, but this is a binary decision that we have to make. There is value in having this field available to the SSAD. That allows the SSAD to make a determination that something should be disclosed rather than have a registrar manually determine. * The Team hasn’t said how this field will be generated. CPs might be more comfortable with the concept if we call this field an output of whether a registrant has self-designated (could be yes/no). That type of data would be useful for analysis, research, transparency. Do not understand the point of what harm would be done with this field. * If we want a field only displayable to the SSAD, that’s better than not having it at all. * Suggest the whole group, as part of homework, go back and look in detail at the Phase 1 report. Purpose 3 – contact with RNH – go to appendix D and review the data element workbook which defined what the Phase 1 team referred to as the minimum public data set. What data elements would be displayed in this minimum public data set? Recommendation 10 is outlining the “minimum public data set” and goes on further to define an additional processing activity that is considered personal data that would ultimately be redacted. Also, go back to Phase 2 – the group needs to make a distinction here if the field is required minimum data set but still optional – is it public or only processed via the SSAD as defined in Phase 2? That is kind of clarity that we are looking for. That is the policy change that may be required that would amend the recommendation from Phase 1. o If the EPDP Team would agree that a standardized data element must be added, what would the data element table look like for this data element (required to be transferred from Rr to Ry, redacted / non-redacted) – see phase 1 recommendations #7, 8, 9 and 10? 3. Some have expressed concern about the use of “unknown” (“that indicates whether the registration contains 1) a legal person, 2) a natural person, 3) unknown…”). Some have suggested it should be replaced by “empty” or “not-specified”, others have suggested there should only be two options, namely legal or natural person. The Staff support team had understood from previous discussions that the use of “unknown” is fairly standard and in this particular case would be helpful, for example, in the case of existing registrations for which no determination may have been made yet. o What would be the appropriate term to use for those registrations for which differentiation has not been done or for which the status is not known (e.g. in cases where differentiation is requested but has not been completed yet)? Or should the field remain blank if unfilled rather than specified as “unknown”? * Unknown is not the proper thing to display. We can simply leave this blank. * The Phase 1 report does not specifically state the aspect where a value of a data element should be left blank. The intent of the data element workbooks was that we are not going to change existing requirements. This is a complex thing we are tackling – the existing requirements are based on the Whois protocol, and we’re in the midst of dealing with RDAP protocol. RDAP does not pass blank values. Review the RDDS specs of the RAA and RA and you will get into the fine details of a footnote that will allow for the understanding that if a data element contains no value, it must still be displayed. However, a Whois advisory notes that CPs cannot pass an empty value at all. Phase 1 group did not specifically state that blank values must be displayed. The intent was not to change the existing requirement, and we have to work through the technical challenges of changing protocols. * Main concern is that if we keep “unknown” this would give the possibility for registrants to identify as unknown. New registrants should identify as natural/legal. For existing registrants could have “not yet identified” 4. Some have suggested that the use of “standardized data element” is vague and have suggested using “standardized mechanism” instead. However, from the discussions to date it seems that a standardized data element has been clearly understood as meaning adding a data element to RDDS (or the Registrar’s internal system) that would allow a registrar to indicate whether the registration concerns a legal / natural person and/or personal / non personal data. o Should the EPDP Team refer to “mechanism” instead? If so, how can mechanism be further described to make clear what is intended to mean and who would be responsible for developing / implementing it. * Do not need to focus on the term mechanism – what we are looking for is a standardized data element – a field in the RDDS. * Would like to hear from whoever recommended the term mechanism. * Confirm next steps - EPDP Team to review updated version of write up and flag any comments or suggested edits in the form of comments to the document by Friday 21 May. 4. Feasibility of unique contacts (30 minutes) 1. Whether or not unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address is feasible, and if feasible, whether it should be a requirement. 2. If feasible, but not a requirement, what guidance, if any, can be provided to Contracted Parties who may want to implement uniform anonymized email addresses. * Questions to be considered by the EPDP Team Note, in a number of instances suggestions were made by some members of the team, which others objected to. Those items have been flagged as changes not applied in the redline version – EPDP Team members are encouraged to reach out to each other to see if a compromise can be reached and communicate these back to the full team for consideration. 1. At the moment, the write up refers Contracted Parties who would like to provide a registrant-based or registration-based email address to the Bird & Bird memo. Some have suggested that more specific guidance should be included or called out. o Should more specific guidance be included, or is it sufficient to refer to the B & B memo (which will be included in full in the annex to the Initial Report)? If more specific guidance is to be included, what should this include? * EPDP Team to refer to specific guidance to be included. 1. No specific proposals have been put forward in relation to the topic of web-forms. Various approaches have been suggested during previous calls such as providing guidance to phase 1 IRT, referring this issue back to the GNSO Council for further consideration, not making any reference here but direct those that have expressed concern about web-forms to the phase 1 IRT and/or ICANN compliance from which the issue can be escalated, if necessary. o Which approach should the EPDP Team follow for the purpose of the Initial Report? o Are there any volunteers that would be willing to write up a proposal on the agreed approach on this topic for the EPDP Team to consider? * Confirm next steps – EPDP Team to review updated version of write up and flag any comments or suggested edits in the form of comments to the document by Friday 21 May. * Based on projected timeline, not sure three meetings will be enough. Will minority statements be allowed? * Minority statements are typically reserved for final reports – the initial report will document where differences exist. * BC intends to submit a minority statement 5. Homework assignments reminder · By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review the updated LvN consensus question i write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_k0hVA6c2SvQPLiaZAlUllTKdplssofYlRHDkeR…) Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments. · By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review updated version of feasibility of unique contacts write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wpZWZzCNcDsAYuy3FqxV67POgDV2hrOvrwGa3kj…). Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments. · EPDP Team to review Rec. 1 and come forward with specific timelines or triggering mechanisms by Friday, 21 May. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_k0hVA6c2SvQPLiaZAlUllTKdplssofYlRHDkeR… · EPDP Team to review the Feasibility Write-up and come forward with draft text from the legal memo to include in the write-up by Friday, 21 May. If no proposals are introduced, Support Staff will leave text as is, i.e. include link to the memo. ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wpZWZzCNcDsAYuy3FqxV67POgDV2hrOvrwGa3kj… ) 6. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): 1. EPDP Team Meeting #24 Thursday 20 May at 14.00 UTC 2. Confirm action items 3. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Proposed agenda - EPDP Phase 2A Meeting #24 - 20 May 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen 18 May '21

18 May '21

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the agenda for the next EPDP Phase 2A meeting on Thursday, 20 May at 14:00 UTC. Item 3 on the agenda is a holdover from today’s agenda. As such, we encourage you to review the request for proposals (in relation to web forms) and send any suggestions to the list in advance of Thursday’s call. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #24 Proposed Agenda Thursday 20 May 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) 3. Feasibility of unique contacts (15 minutes) 1. Whether or not unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address is feasible, and if feasible, whether it should be a requirement. 2. If feasible, but not a requirement, what guidance, if any, can be provided to Contracted Parties who may want to implement uniform anonymized email addresses. * Questions to be considered by the EPDP Team Note, in a number of instances suggestions were made by some members of the team, which others objected to. Those items have been flagged as changes not applied in the redline version – EPDP Team members are encouraged to reach out to each other to see if a compromise can be reached and communicate these back to the full team for consideration. 1. No specific proposals have been put forward in relation to the topic of web-forms. Various approaches have been suggested during previous calls such as providing guidance to phase 1 IRT, referring this issue back to the GNSO Council for further consideration, not making any reference here but direct those that have expressed concern about web-forms to the phase 1 IRT and/or ICANN compliance from which the issue can be escalated, if necessary. o Which approach should the EPDP Team follow for the purpose of the Initial Report? o Are there any volunteers that would be willing to write up a proposal on the agreed approach on this topic for the EPDP Team to consider? * Confirm next steps – EPDP Team to review updated version of write up and flag any comments or suggested edits in the form of comments to the document by Friday 21 May. 4. Legal vs. natural (45 minutes) 1. Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“); 2. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. Consensus policy question write up * Staff walk through of updated recommendation concerning standardized data element. * Initial feedback & reactions from EPDP Team * Confirm next steps - EPDP Team to review updated version of write up and flag any comments or suggested edits in the form of comments to the document by Friday 21 May. Guidance write up – outstanding issues * In light of ICANN org input on how guidance/best practices would be implemented by ICANN org (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2021-May/003904.html) is there: 1. Any need for further updates in relation to EPDP Team expectations for implementation of guidance / best practices or is it sufficient to point to this response to clarify how guidance / best practice recommendations would be treated? 2. Any need to further consider possible incentives for CPs to follow this guidance, noting that some concerns were previously expressed that “linking of acceptance of risk to the data rights of registrants in exchange for certain incentives, especially monetary in value” could be problematic? Is this a potential question for which input can be sought during the public comment forum? 3. No indication has been provided that there would be a difference in treatment between guidelines/guidance/best practices – what term should be used in the Initial Report? 5. Homework assignments reminder · By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review the updated LvN consensus question i write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_k0hVA6c2SvQPLiaZAlUllTKdplssofYlRHDkeR…). Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments. · By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review updated version of feasibility of unique contacts write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wpZWZzCNcDsAYuy3FqxV67POgDV2hrOvrwGa3kj…). Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments. Next steps / Timeline reminder https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad… 6. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): 1. EPDP Team Meeting #25 Tuesday 25 May at 14.00 UTC 2. Confirm action items 3. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A | Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 18 May '21

18 May '21

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A call held on Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/3gSlCQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…>. 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, Terri

1 0