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

For your review - updated logging and auditing building blocks
by Marika Konings Nov. 5, 2019

Nov. 5, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, A small group of EPDP Team members reviewed the logging building block yesterday and has made some proposed updates. Please review these proposed updates in advance of Thursday’s meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/130z5SNuYgGhlH9hnAHJcjuZ_9F5zP7uJ4P4g_Xc…. The small group also started reviewing the auditing building block (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MsvOfYu7tV97tGzQNjh52hZNxSsCw5ps4-dLvfR…) but did not manage to complete its review, but everyone committed to do so in advance of Thursday’s meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Updated language in query building block to address 'abusive nature' description
by Marika Konings Nov. 4, 2019

Nov. 4, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As discussed during yesterday’s meeting, leadership and the staff support team have made some further edits to the query building block to address the concerns expressed in relation to the description of abusive nature. You will find the updated version attached. To facilitate your review, we accepted all previous redlines and added new language to note the mechanism to seek redress, clarified that a high volume of requests in itself is not considered abusive and added language to the next section to make clear that SSAD should be able to receive and process a high volume of requests. We hope that this finds the appropriate balance between the different positions expressed. We will discuss this further during the EPDP Team meeting later today. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Updated description of abusive behavior for review
by Marika Konings Nov. 2, 2019

Nov. 2, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, The small team that came together after the meeting developed updated language to address the description of abusive behavior. Please review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13boFDslLC00MpuIhQV7yhwq0LPjZ-gz79pTmL-j…. Happy reading! Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Proposed slides for plenary session
by Marika Konings Nov. 2, 2019

Nov. 2, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached for your review the proposed slides for Monday’s plenary session. Preparations for this session will be covered during the first part of Sunday’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

as discussed, proposed language for disclosure caveat
by Stephanie Perrin Nov. 2, 2019

Nov. 2, 2019

When considering the publication of non-public data of legal persons, particularly with respect to NGOS and parties engaged in human rights activities that may be protected by local law (e.g. Constitutional and Charter Rights law), data controllers/processors must consider the impact on identifiable individuals. cheers Stephanie

1 0

FW: [RegDataPolicy.IPT] Status update on EPDP Rec. 15.1
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 2, 2019

Nov. 2, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below a message from Karen Lentz regarding ICANN org’s analysis in response to the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 15.1 on data retention. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin From: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, November 1, 2019 at 12:39 PM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org>, "regdatapolicy.ipt(a)icann.org" <regdatapolicy.ipt(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-epdp-lead(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-lead(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.IPT] Status update on EPDP Rec. 15.1 Dear colleagues, Further to this note, attached is ICANN org’s analysis in response to the EPDP Ph 1 Recommendation 15.1 on data retention. A summary of the key points is below: ICANN org was asked to respond to the Phase 1 recommendation 15 to identify and document instances where ICANN org has a need for data beyond the life of a domain name registration, with the intent of informing the Phase 2 deliberations. In the interim, the EPDP Phase 1 team recommended that an 18-month data retention requirement be in place for registrars as part of the Phase 1 policy. Implementation of the 18-month requirement is applicable to the provisions of the RAA Data Retention Specification on retention of registration data elements; other existing retention requirements (e.g., for records of communications) are not changed. We have identified one instance where ICANN org would be requesting data from a registrar beyond the life of the registration. This instance is contractual compliance functions, particularly around expiration and deletion of names. ICANN org cannot investigate registrar compliance with relevant policy and contractual requirements this if data is not retained. Contractual Compliance functions do not prescribe particular data retention periods and ICANN org will perform its compliance function to the extent possible within the applicable period. The RAA Data Retention Specification is not primarily in place for ICANN org to use data retained by registrars, but rather to support other purposes such as registrant protection, technical issue resolution, security and stability, abuse mitigation, and others. The EPDP’s recommendation 15.1 suggests that community members be invited to contribute to this exercise by providing input on other potential use cases for different retention periods. The next step will be for the Phase 2 team to decide how it wants to seek such input on this topic. Note that a related analysis in regard to Recommendation 15.4, a review of the Data Retention Waiver Procedure, is forthcoming. This work is in progress and we hope to be able to provide it this week as well. We hope the above is helpful; please let us know of any additional questions. Best regards, Karen -- Karen Lentz Director, Operations & Policy Research ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles CA 90094 +1 310 895 3637

1 0

Building blocks - Remaining issues identified
by Marika Konings Nov. 2, 2019

Nov. 2, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Here is the overview of outstanding issues that were identified based on the review of the comments and input received by Wednesday’s deadline. We’ll use these as a guide to manage the discussions during ICANN66. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Balancing Test Framework
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 1, 2019

Nov. 1, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Thank you to Matthew for circulating the updated balancing test framework document. Please find a google doc version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2OvifT9IuLBbisPIhgbALL02nisExAOSdNh6A1… Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin From: "Crossman, Matthew" <mmcross(a)amazon.com> Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Balancing Test Framework All, Following the LA meeting, the RySG agreed to consolidate Alan Woods’ 6.1(f) procedural document and the legal advice received on the balancing test. Attached is our simplified framework of non-binding guidance to assist controllers in performing the 6.1(f) balancing test. Thanks, Matt Matthew Crossman | Amazon Corporate Counsel gTLD Registry, IP P: 206-266-1103 | C: 530-574-2956 Email: mmcross(a)amazon.com

1 0

EPDP Phase 1 Consultation from GNSO Council regarding recommendation #12
by Rafik Dammak Nov. 1, 2019

Nov. 1, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP Team, I wanted to provide you with an update on the status of consultations with the ICANN Board in relation to parts of the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations that were not adopted by the ICANN Board (recommendation #1, purpose 2 and recommendation #12 – deletion of org field data). Most recently: ● The GNSO Council wrote to the ICANN Board to share its take-aways from the engagement with the ICANN Board on this topic during ICANN65, to which a number of EPDP Team members contributed (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-icann-board-09sep1… ). ● The ICANN Board provided a response (seehttps:// gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-14oct19-en.pdf) which the Council discussed during its most recent meeting on Thursday 24 October 2019. As part of its consideration of the Board’s response, focusing on recommendation #12 –deletion of data, Council members tend to agree with the ICANN Board that everyone has the same goal in mind here “which is ensuring there are no inadvertent consequences of the deletion of data while ensuring compliance with applicable laws”. The Council, based on the input that has been provided by EPDP Team members, assumed that this notion was already implied in recommendation #12. However, noting the Board’s concern, the Council discussed during the 24 October meeting whether this could be made more explicit, for example in the form of implementation guidance, similar to how a safeguard was included in relation to the deletion of administrative data (“prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information”). Before further pursuing this approach (by way of an implementation guidance, instead of modifying recommendation #12), the Council would like to hear from the EPDP Team if there are any concerns about doing so or any other input the Council should consider as it aims to conclude the consultations with the ICANN Board. I realize that it is short notice, but if there are any initial reactions that I can take back to the GNSO Council before Sunday 3 November, this may already be informative as the Council will meet with the ICANN Board during ICANN66 and is expected to discuss this topic further during the Council meeting which is scheduled for 6 November 2019. I will also check with Janis to see if there are a couple of minutes we can carve out from the Saturday session to get some initial reactions. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP Team

6 6

EPDP-P2 - Project Package - Close of October 2019
by policy＠bacinblack.com Oct. 31, 2019

Oct. 31, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the EPDP-P2's close of October 2019 Project Package. I've attached the PDF here, but you can find individual work products and the raw MPP file on the wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/6BdIBg) All in all, the project health is still On-Track and On-Schedule. We are slightly behind schedule at the task level related to our building blocks. EPDP leadership is aware of this and in response made the decision to increase the group's call volume through the time to Initial Report delivery. Project Package Contents: * Page 1 - Summary Gantt chart timeline * Page 2 - Fact Sheet - summary schedule of financial condition as managed by the PCST sub-team * Page 3 - Situation Report - details about project health and current state activities * Page 4 - Project Plan; partially collapsed. If a detailed task view is required, please advise and I can print a fully expanded version. * Page 5,6 - Work Plan / Action Items - Active * Pages 7+ - Work Plan / Action Items - Closed Thank you. B Berry Cobb @berrycobb GNSO Policy Consultant

1 0