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

Initial Report - final version + redline
by Caitlin Tubergen June 3, 2021

June 3, 2021

Dear EPDP Team, As Keith noted earlier, Leadership and the Staff Support Team have considered the input from our last meeting as well as suggested edits received via the feedback form and via the list and updated the Initial Report accordingly. The Support Staff Team has submitted the Initial Report to the ICANN org internal team for publication. Attached, you will find the final Initial Report as well as the redline version where you can see all of the changes. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Chair Update - Initial Report
by Margie Milam June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

Hi Keith- We’d like to raise a point of order regarding the feedback, since our understanding was that these issues were open until June 3rd per Barry’s chart, and that there would be a call on Thursday to discuss. As a result, several of us submitted comments this morning. In light of this, we kindly request that leadership review our feedback substantively. Thanks very much, Margie Milam, on behalf of the BC From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 9:42 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <berry(a)bacinblack.com> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Chair Update - Initial Report Dear EPDP 2A Team, We are currently in the final stages of publishing the Initial Report, and I wanted to provide you with a quick status update. 1. We currently plan to cancel tomorrow’s meeting. As noted below, Leadership has endeavored to resolve all outstanding issues that were discussed during yesterday’s meeting. We will, however, wait to confirm this cancellation until COB today in the event there is a last-minute need to convene the group. 2. The deadline for final feedback on questions or the three open items identified on the call was COB yesterday. 3. Leadership and Support Staff are currently reviewing the proposed updates and are planning to send the final version of the Initial Report to the EPDP Team and to the ICANN org publication team by the COB today. 4. As noted during yesterday’s call, where there is disagreement, Leadership made an executive decision in an effort to get the report to a final state. In making a final decision, we endeavored to consider all viewpoints and proposed compromise text in recognition of outstanding disagreements. 5. Feedback received after the deadline was reviewed by Leadership and Support Staff. In instances where the feedback proposed a minor edit, we accepted it; however, where feedback would result in a substantial change to existing text, we did not accept this. We welcome you to provide these types of comments during the public comment period. 6. Thank you to those who worked together to resolve issues over the list; these edits have been included in the updated Initial Report. 7. We recognize that there are still some outstanding issues that EPDP members may be unhappy with, but we welcome further input during the public comment period. Thank you for your hard work to get us to this point. Best regards, Keith

3 2

Meeting Invitation | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Phase 2A call | Thursday, 10 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

Meeting Invites for this group will now be sent only to the main mailing list with the ics attachments. Directions for members, alternates and observers are listed below. Dear all, The GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A call is scheduled on Thursday, 10 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom room information: 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 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!q…> Members, alternates, observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: 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/IALpCQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/255722be [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/255722be__;!!PtGJab4!t9HxSzz…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_ican…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the EPDP Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment – EPDP Phase 2A wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/h4jzC>. * Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Panelists and Attendees when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternates not replacing a member: Please rename your line by adding THREE Zs - (zzz)’before your name and add, in parentheses at the end, (your affiliation - alternate). To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat (apart from private chats) or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing / disagreeing. Only for Observers: * 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. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A call
by ICANN Policy Calendar June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

Meeting Invites for this group will now be sent only to the main mailing list with the ics attachments. Directions for members, alternates and observers are listed below. Meeting: GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A call Date/time: Thursday, 10 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes Zoom room information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 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!q…> Members, alternates, observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: 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/IALpCQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/255722be [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/255722be__;!!PtGJab4!t9HxSzz…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_ican…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the EPDP Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment – EPDP Phase 2A wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/h4jzC>. * Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Panelists and Attendees when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternates not replacing a member: Please rename your line by adding THREE Zs - (zzz)’before your name and add, in parentheses at the end, (your affiliation - alternate). To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat (apart from private chats) or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing / disagreeing. Only for Observers: * 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. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

CANCELLED | Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

**This meeting has been cancelled, please remove it from your calendars. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09<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/VwzQCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/3rrutec2 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/3rrutec2__;!!PtGJab4!t9YS191…> 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 - Initial Report
by Drazek, Keith June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

Dear EPDP 2A Team, We are currently in the final stages of publishing the Initial Report, and I wanted to provide you with a quick status update. 1. We currently plan to cancel tomorrow’s meeting. As noted below, Leadership has endeavored to resolve all outstanding issues that were discussed during yesterday’s meeting. We will, however, wait to confirm this cancellation until COB today in the event there is a last-minute need to convene the group. 2. The deadline for final feedback on questions or the three open items identified on the call was COB yesterday. 3. Leadership and Support Staff are currently reviewing the proposed updates and are planning to send the final version of the Initial Report to the EPDP Team and to the ICANN org publication team by the COB today. 4. As noted during yesterday’s call, where there is disagreement, Leadership made an executive decision in an effort to get the report to a final state. In making a final decision, we endeavored to consider all viewpoints and proposed compromise text in recognition of outstanding disagreements. 5. Feedback received after the deadline was reviewed by Leadership and Support Staff. In instances where the feedback proposed a minor edit, we accepted it; however, where feedback would result in a substantial change to existing text, we did not accept this. We welcome you to provide these types of comments during the public comment period. 6. Thank you to those who worked together to resolve issues over the list; these edits have been included in the updated Initial Report. 7. We recognize that there are still some outstanding issues that EPDP members may be unhappy with, but we welcome further input during the public comment period. Thank you for your hard work to get us to this point. Best regards, Keith

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2a Meeting#25 - 27 May 2021
by STROUNGI Melina June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

Many thanks Sarah for your message and proposed wording. I understand your point that repeating GDPR passages that one can refer to may not have much added benefit, however I’m concerned that making our own statements goes to the other extreme. Our goal here is to provide guidance on the contracted parties who wish to differentiate and on how to best do this; it is not to provide guidance on data protection law and how the GDPR principles apply or how those could be combined with the right to information. This is really up to the DPAs. So I would not feel comfortable with moving section D to the Guidance section and there is no reason to shoot ourselves on the foot ☺ If it’s important to you that this part stays, then I could support the guidance you have inserted in the footnotes as part of the Background section, but please let’s stick to the exact quotes and wording of that guidance to avoid any confusion and over-interpretation. Best regards, Melina From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld via Gnso-epdp-team Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 7:35 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2a Meeting#25 - 27 May 2021 Hello, Thank you to Laureen, Chris, and Melina for your proposed changes. I’m fine with the updates to the introductory paragraph. The RrSG-proposed version relies on guidance that has already been received from relevant data protection authorities; it is not providing legal advice. I have attached an updated version which has footnotes with links to the relevant guidance. Replacing the points a-d with direct quotes from GDPR Art. 5 does not, in my view, bring any added benefit. The reader of this Report can reference the GDPR directly whenever they need to do so. I understand that there is an objection to paraphrasing the GDPR, but there have been no specific concerns raised with these descriptions of how to adhere to these GDPR principles, so although there are legitimate concerns about the deleterious effects of paraphrasing/providing excerpts from Bird & Bird legal memos, I have seen nothing to indicate that the same concerns are at issue here. Overall the actual specific guidance provided by the RrSG team is almost entirely unrepresented in the Initial Report, and removing these points a – d simply finishes the job of erasing it, so I cannot support these alterations or removing section D entirely (as was proposed in one of the input charts). I do see that it may not be a good fit in the Background section and may be more appropriately located in the Guidance section, so I would be in favour of moving it to that part of the report. Thank you. -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/her swyld(a)tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 [cid:image001.png@01D75702.38B58410] From: Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Sent: May 28, 2021 6:00 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2a Meeting#25 - 27 May 2021 For clarity – the attachment in the prior email reflects the GAC’s current position. We are still hoping to work this through with Sarah. Laureen Kapin Acting Assistant Director Division of Consumer Response and Operations Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:29 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2a Meeting #25 - 27 May 2021 Hi folks, We wanted to update you on our deliberations about paragraph D of the Background and Team Observations starting at line 256. We’ve been conferring with Sarah W. on a way to move forward and address our preference to avoid: 1) paraphrasing select parts of the GDPR and 2) providing legal advice rather than policy guidance (other than referencing the legal memos). Our team hasn’t had a chance to finalize our deliberations because of the difference in time zones and competing demands of other time sensitive work but the attached proposal reflects our current thinking. Please excuse formatting and note that the line #s do not match the revised Draft Report because of the edits. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Acting Assistant Director Division of Consumer Response and Operations Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen via Gnso-epdp-team Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 2:31 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2a Meeting #25 - 27 May 2021 Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin 💥 📣 🛎 🚨 Action Items<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3H…> 🚨 🛎 📣 💥 1. EPDP Team members are to review the input form with the proposed resolution of cannot live with items<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/at…>, Keith’s email (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2021-May/003937.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/20…>) the updated section 3 of the Initial Report (https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1TW3Z…>) and indicate what changes/updates are essential FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE INITIAL REPORT in this table<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aaDULVrGIkWX…> BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS, FRIDAY 28 MAY. As such, you are encouraged to focus your input on any clarifying edits and/or questions that should be added to encourage community input. Input table: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aaDULVrGIkWXEGfoal8RqkC_baNjmVvujgk1HIy…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aaDULVrGIkWX…>. 2. Deadline for flagging any minor edits / corrections by 16:00 UTC on Friday, 28 May. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aaDULVrGIkWXEGfoal8RqkC_baNjmVvujgk1HIy…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aaDULVrGIkWX…>) 3. RrSG and GAC to come forward with proposal for updated Guidance D to factor in concerns addressed (References to “controller” are not helpful as ICANN has recently avoided ‘admitting’ its controllership. Each CP must determine for itself if/how data protection law might impact its processing. This appears to be quasi-legal advice, which should be avoided. We should also avoid paraphrasing the GDPR) by Friday, 28 May. 4. IPC and GAC reps to come forward with a proposal for footnote 8, “8 The personal/non-personal distinction only applies/is relevant for registrants who have self-identified as legal persons” by Friday, 28 May. 5. RySG to come forward with a proposed question to put forward to the community in relation to the standardized data element to obtain further input on whether changes should be considered to the terminology used or the type of data element proposed by Friday, 28 May. 27. 6. GAC to liaise with RySG to address the concerns of the RySG regarding the GAC-proposed feasibility recommendation. (Note: GAC has suggested the RrSG proposed suggestion could be a viable alternative.) 7. Groups who support including a recommendation on webforms to formulate specific questions for community input factoring in the concerns of other groups that have been expressed on the mailing list. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #25 Proposed Agenda Thursday 27 May 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) a. “Cannot live with” items take-aways - 77 items were addressed as cannot live with, which is very concerning - Each group will be asked to speak for 1-2 minutes about a proposed path forward for the group. - Your group can discuss a path forward in a general sense or discuss specific items - Cannot live with items are typically used to indicate fundamental disagreement for a Final Report. This group is not there yet. We are developing proposed text and questions to seek public comment on. - Struggling with the number of cannot live with items at this stage of the process b. Approach & expected next steps for Initial Report publication 3. Consider any remaining “cannot live with” items identified by EPDP Team members after review of Initial Report input form with proposed solution and redline version of updated Initial Report a. Consider items submitted prior to the meeting - RrSG: Members have approached this group and work with unrealistic expectations regarding changes that are beyond the scope of this group’s work and are unhappy that they cannot achieve what they want. - ALAC: part of the issue is timing. To some extent, maybe if we had more time to talk, digest, and consider these documents, there would have been more time to consult with our constituencies. Many concerns were resolved with the staff issues, but the other issues need to be resolved one-by-one. - BC: This is not just the timing issue. There is also a tone issue. This is about optional guidance; it is not about imposing requirements. In the ICANN model, when the status quo is favored, you have the option to be magnanimous when opposing change. BC has been on both sides; however, BC has never brutally disparaged other interests, but that is happening in this group. - RrSG: Interesting to hear ALAC and BC raise similar concerns as the RrSG. RrSG’s concerns that have been repeatedly raised are hidden in footnotes. It’s important to ensure arguments have equal time. - GAC: Believe the group is closer than we think – confident that we can get to “yes” with everyone being equally unhappy. When GAC reviewed additions from the RySG and saw what was a neutral but barebones description, GAC thought it needed to include the same so that there is a balance. It is fair for everyone to be mindful of wanting to achieve a balanced and objective view in the report as to the state of play and clear indications of where we disagree for the purpose of soliciting public comments. If some groups put in text that tilt the scales, they should expect the other side to respond. It’s fair to ask everyone to forbear but not reasonable to expect groups to not put their perspective down. It may be helpful for groups to mutually disarm. We may need another week to review the changes that Staff has made. - Beyond a week extension, we would need to go back to the Council for a project change request. - NCSG: Think we should modulate our expectations for this report. Even though we are arguing about fine points. It is fair in an initial report – we worked on this for [x] months, there are still firmly-held positions. One side says this, and the other side says this, so that it’s clear to the reader what the two positions are. We should not pretend we have consensus when we don’t. - ALAC: in taking a look at the contentious parts of the report – the introduction is very contentious. With respect to the actual substance and concrete recommendations of the report, the group is closer to consensus. - IPC: More time may be needed to digest the changes. It would be helpful to have the line numbers updated for the new version. - ISPCP: Pleased to review Keith’s email – did not put any can’t live with items in this table. There seems to have been a lot of time devoted to items that are not in scope. What we may be seeing here is a process where items that are out of scope are not included in this report and a process of mourning. We need more time for reflection on the scope. Based on these conversations, it seems that we may be closer than we thought. - SSAC: Concerned with getting the group back on track and working toward consensus. - RySG: RySG has made interventions re: scope. This group has a specific task to go by. EPDP has become a work horse where groups continually bring things to the table. There are a lot of eyes on the MSM; it’s important to follow the process and stay in scope. If we do not agree with the guidance or agree that it will be helpful to CPs, then it is not good guidance. It’s important to point out in FN13 that three of the members of this team believe that this should be mandatory. There has been a mixed message. - Thank you to all for the frank conversation. There is a general view that we are closer than it appears. There is a recognition that we can do some work over the next week and that we need to clearly resolve some of the cannot live with designations. We need everyone to go back to the cannot live with designations. These are significant and mean something when staff and leadership does its analysis to try to resolve issues. The way forward: all groups to review the responses to the cannot live with items, review Keith’s email from yesterday, and the latest version of the Initial Report with the redlines. What needs to be added in terms of questions to ensure we get meaningful input in the public comment forum. b. Confirm next steps 4. Consider items flagged for further discussion and resolution (see list of blue items): a. Should standardized data element recommendation include reference to extensibility? Is this a necessary missing element or can this also be considered after public comment? - This is a field meant to talk about registrant type. There may be value in not unduly restricting this field if we want to expand this field in the future. - Registries do not support this as a field in the public RDDS, but do support this being a standardized data element for registrars who choose to differentiate. Concerned with the fields we have standardized own – this seems to contradict the Team’s own advice that legal/natural distinction is not dispositive for whether the registration contains personal data or not. Concerned that legal/natural/unknown are not the right fields. For that reason, wise of SSAC to suggest some flexibility here. - This is in the RDDS period – a question later on is if this should be public. The Initial Report asks a question about whether this should be sent to the SSAD. Thought “unknown” was changed to “unspecified” since unknown is unclear as to who doesn’t know it. - Seems that RySG is saying the data element should be extensible, could be for example, legal but contains personal data. That statement does not contradict the statement from SSAC. Agree that “unknown” is not as good as “unspecified”. - RySG to include a question for public comment re: this field. The question is around the fields to be standardized, and we need to come to agreement on a question to pose that can help inform the discussion on this. If the text doesn’t have the right fields, we need input on how to get input on what the right fields are. - ALAC is adamant that the field should be added to RDDS, not necessarily the public RDDS. If there are too many values, the field may not have as much utility. - If there are not the right fields, what could they be, what should they be? - This is a question of sorting. This is an initial sorting of legal, natural, or unspecified. The question of whether personal data is present, is a separate analytical issue. This concern is already reflected in the guidance. - The distinction b/w legal and natural is not relevant for all data protection law. The whole idea of managing personal information by asking about legal v. natural misses the point. b. Footnote 5 – GAC to confirm whether this footnote must remain as it is a cannot live with item for the IPC. Footnote was originally added at the request of the GAC. c. LvN Background Information D. – GDPR Principles that may apply. RrSG Team has indicated that this is important guidance to Registrars, others (IPC, GAC, ALAC, GAC) have indicated concerns with this language. GAC & RrSG were assigned action item to come up with a mutually acceptable approach. - GAC has no opposition to referencing principles; however, uncomfortable with paraphrasing the GDPR and picking certain principles over others. - Not in favor of striking section D – it’s important to convey the GDPR principles. This is a way to incorporate the guidance registrars have been trying to provide all along. d. New recommendation (submitted after the deadline) re. LvN Guidance - The guidance does not include the key advice – if the legal registration does not include personal information, it should be published. The “money issue” is omitted – it’s only included in the scenarios, which is not guidance. This issue has been raised all along – this is a real, true cannot live with item. - Support previous comment – we have guidance, which is not mandatory, saying if you choose to differentiate, this is how to do it, but we don’t have the result of it. In other words, every registrar could differentiate, but there is still nothing published. The registry comment is talking about publishing the type, and this is not what the sentence is saying. This is about publishing the actual data, not the flag. - This is something that registrars can decide to do field by field. - Question is to the registries – this feedback is based on a different topic than what the text was. This appears to relate to the publication of the legal/natural flag. - Can agree to a should but not a must - Do not agree with the two-levels of permissiveness – it’s already guidance – why does it also need to say should? e. New recommendation (submitted after the deadline) re. web forms - The target of a PDP should not be “we followed the rules”; the target should be good policy. If we are not going to recommend pseudonymized emails, there is an impact of that decision, and that is why the web form recommendation is suggested. f. New recommendation (submitted after the deadline) re. feasibility - This is not a new concept; this is the crux of these discussions so that it can be identified for public comment. With the registrar’s suggested text, hoping to get to “yes”. - Is this new language being proposed as guidance? - Answer: yes. g. Confirm next steps - Provide an opportunity or a path for including the bracketed language unless there is strong disagreement. - If there is general agreement that this text can be included after additional wordsmithing; however, if there is significant disagreement, may have to set them aside. - Over the next 24-36 hours, please spend time on these outstanding items to get this across the finish line. Plan to schedule meetings on Tuesday and Thursday 5. Public Comment Forum a. EPDP Team to provide suggestions for how to best solicit input from the community and avoid restatements of already known positions and/or information. b. Confirm next steps 6. Homework assignments reminder · By Friday 28 May at 16.00 UTC, EPDP Team to review latest version of the Initial Report and submit any minor edits / non-substantive comments. 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. EPDP Team Meeting #26 Tuesday 1 June at 14.00 UTC (if necessary) b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

2 1

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09<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/VwzQCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/3rrutec2 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/3rrutec2__;!!PtGJab4!t9YS191…> 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

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2A Meeting #26 - 1 June 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen June 1, 2021

June 1, 2021

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin ‼️💥 📣 🛎 🚨 Action Items<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…> 💥 📣 🛎 🚨 ‼️ Please find a link to outstanding action items: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad… As a reminder, please provide suggested edits (if any) to the proposed community questions via this google form (https://docs.google.com/document/d/195LOzu25ZspprM5b4ECqwb46gLRfP7Ez/edit) by COB today, 1 June. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #26 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 1 June 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) a. Latest version of Initial Report & expected next steps, including potentially unresolved items 3. Initial Report Questions for Community Input (30 minutes) a. Consider input / suggestions received in advance of the meeting * Questions re: Rec. 3 (standardized data element) * Do not understand this question as it seems the group agrees to this. Not sure what value there is in posing the question this way. * There was a general recognition that standardization would be good, but there were concerns about requirements around using the data element * In terms of what any registrar does internally is entirely up to them. The only issue is if this will be communicated to someone else. If you communicate it, there should be a standard way of doing it. * Under the impression that where there was disagreement was whether a standardized data element must be used if a CP chooses to differentiate. Was not under the impression about whether a standardized data element should even be available. Could go right to Q3 and skip the first two questions. * We will receive a diverse spread of answers to open-ended questions. The new field was pretty well decided. * Standardized data elements are most useful when communicating with others. Recommend removing the first clause of Q3 – [must CPs use a standardized data element when communicating with all parties?] * RySG has operational concerns and scope concerns. While having the data element available to registrars – this would make it an active requirement for registries. It becomes a mandatory build on the Ry end, even if they are not going to differentiate. Q2 and Q3 – looking here for input so that the Team can discuss it further. RySG is good to go if it’s clear that these issues are still being discussed. * The field is optional. For those who are not going to differentiate are not going to use it. However, if they do choose to differentiate in the future, this makes it easier to do in the future. There are already changes to the RDDS anyway. * If we are in the RDDS making changes already, this is the time to make changes. In the case of Phase 1, where someone can supply consent to publish, we agreed that consent to publish would not be transferred between contracted parties. It seems to be the same concept here. One CP has determined that this party is a legal person and that doesn’t need to be transferred to other parties. This is a field b/w CPs and requestors, and if anyone doesn’t want to do it, they don’t have to do it. * RySG is fine with including these questions. Having the note that this is still open to discussion and look forward to receiving feedback from the community. * There does not appear to be general agreement on this data element. Recommend keeping the questions as is. * With respect to Q3 as drafted is necessary or appropriate – “is it sufficient” rather than how useful is it? * Agree this wording is awkward * Not appropriate to ask the community to opine on legal guidance because do not see what purpose it serves * Do not think what we were trying to do is get the community to opine on substantive legal guidance; this was about concerns about, functionally speaking, the way the excerpts of the legal guidance are included is the question. * Providing a large block of text isn’t very valuable either, providing footnotes would be helpful. Are there legal and regulatory considerations that should inform Rys and Rrs in differentiating? If we remove all references, there should be a comment about how we removed references. * Eliminate Q3 – or replace it. Helpful to provide a framework where commenters can comment about emerging laws and regulations so that when Staff receives the public input, it knows how organize it. * Take an action item for work offline for members who would like to update questions in Section 4 – treatment of Q3. * Feasibility questions – * What is Q2 referring to? (answer: guidance) * Q2 is unnecessary * Q3 is unhelpful, as written. Should ask the question in a way that can be responded to. The words “how useful” will not assist in getting valuable feedback. * Do not think we should ask for the public’s assessment of the legal guidance. Do think it’s a useful question if there is additional information that the public thinks would be useful to consider as well. * Agreement to strike Q3 in this section and in the previous section * Action for Sarah and Laureen for outstanding item 2 b. Confirm next steps 4. Public Comment Forum (15 minutes) a. With focus being on questions for input, should a form approach be used to encourage input on these questions as well as facilitate review of input received? * Google form is not possible for some companies * A word template could be helpful b. Confirm next steps 5. ICANN71 (15 minutes) a. Session has been scheduled for Wednesday 16 June at 14.30 UTC, focused on presenting findings and soliciting community input. Chair expected to present. EPDP Team members encouraged to attend and participate – with focus on how to encourage submissions of new information / ideas that will help inform the EPDP Team’s deliberations. b. Questions / Comments 6. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. EPDP Team Meeting #27 Thursday 3 June at 14.00 UTC (if necessary) b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Unique Contacts Homework
by LEWIS-EVANS, Christopher June 1, 2021

June 1, 2021

OFFICIAL Hi All As stated on the call today the proposed way forward on the recommendation for Unique contacts is as follows: Replace the language from lines 686-696 (of "EPDP phase 2a - Initial report - Section 3 - Updated 31 May 2021") with: "Contracted Parties who choose to publish a registrant or registration-based email address in the publicly accessible RDDS should ensure appropriate safeguards for the data subject in line with relevant guidance on anonymization techniques provided by their data protection authorities and the appended legal guidance in this recommendation." Thanks Chris This information is supplied in confidence by the NCA. The NCA is not listed as a Public Authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Any information supplied by, or relating to, the NCA is also subject to an absolute exemption. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under data protection legislation. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the NCA FOI single point of contact, by email on StatutoryDisclosureTeam(a)nca.gov.uk. All email sent and received by the NCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by NCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. Email may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within the NCA, on authority from the Director General or their Deputy for analysis. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

1 0