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

Consensus Designations
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Everyone: We spent a lot of today looking at past PDPs and levels of Consensus designations. I also considered your emails regarding consensus designations and appreciate the experience you have had as Chair or members of previous PDPs. We particularly examined the Curative Rights PDP, IGO/NGO PDP and the Registration Abuse Policies WG (and others). In those we found examples of designations of consensus where 4 of 15 members disagreed or representatives of three different GNSO groups disagreed. I have thought to take a conservative approach to consensus designations because I do not want to inflate the perceptions around our levels of agreement. To me a label of “Stong Agreement / Significant Opposition” should be an indication to the Council that such a recommendation should be favorably considered for adoption. However, past precedent indicates a broader definition of “Consensus” is appropriate. Therefore, I have adjusted some of the designations in accordance with the Alan's, Thomas’ and other emails. I chose not to conflate the number of groups with the voting scheme of the GNSO Council. I think that is the province of the Council, i.e., discussion at the Council level and the voting scheme will come into play there as items with “Strong Support" are considered. The report will necessarily list those in opposition to t certain recommendation. Please check the attached to determine support (or the opposite) is accurately reflected. During the call tomorrow, we will check to see if any levels of support have changed based on the discussion and email exchanges. Please write back with questions. Kurt

4 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: Confirming objections to recommendation #16 - geographic basis
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Milton, please note that the reference here to ‘group’ was not intended to refer to stakeholder group but to ‘group’ as used in the EPDP Team Charter, more specifically the table on page 12-13. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 22:11 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Confirming objections to recommendation #16 - geographic basis Marika and Caitlin Another reminder that the relevant groups from the GNSO are Stakeholder Groups, not constituencies. IPC and BC are two thirds of the Commercial Stakeholder Group, they are not each of them the equivalent of RySG, RrSG or NCSG, ALAC, GAC or SSAC. The correct way for you to list the groups not supporting Rec 16 would be: ALAC SSAC 2/3 of CSG (IPC and BC) Please correct this mistake going forward. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Feb 19, 2019, at 12:26, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear EPDP Team, Per today’s meeting, the staff support team has currently noted the following groups as not supporting recommendation #16 (“The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.”): * ALAC * SSAC * IPC * BC If your group is missing, or your group’s position has changed as a result of today’s discussion, please let us know as soon as possible so this can be accurately documented in the Final Report in relation to this recommendation, as well as factored into the consensus designation process. 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…>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

3 2

Fw: [council] Vote deferral requested
by Ayden Férdeline Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

For information purposes, please be aware of this email that was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list. If the Council Chair responds, I will forward his correspondence along. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:08 PM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> wrote: > Dear Keith, > > On behalf of the BC, we would like to request that the Council vote on the Phase 1 EPDP Report be postponed until Monday 4th March so as to permit the continuation of the very practical ongoing discussion within the EPDP Team on the unresolved policy recommendations. > > Thanks in advance, > > Scott & Marie > > Marie Pattullo > > Senior Trade Marks and Brand Protection Manager > > [cid:image001.png@01D48358.C5A0D6C0] > > European Brands Association > > Avenue des Gaulois 9 · 1040 [Brussels](https://www.google.com/maps?q=9+avenue+des+Gaulois+%0D%0AB-1040++… · Belgium > > T: +32 2 736 03 05 > > M: +32 496 610 395 > > E: marie.pattullo(a)aim.be > > W: [www.aim.be](http://www.aim.be/) > > EU Transparency Register: [1074382679-01](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=1074382679-01) > > [LinkedIn icon](https://www.linkedin.com/company/aim---european-brands-association/) [Twitter icon](https://twitter.com/AIMbrands)

1 0

Point of clarification Re: Purpose 2
by Ben Butler Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Kurt, Marika, and team. In reviewing the recent concern designations that were sent to the team, I noticed that SSAC’s position was listed as opposed to Purpose 2. In reviewing the deliberations within SSAC, this should instead be “support with comments”. Our concerns with Purpose 2 were concerning vagueness in the language, but overall, we are supporting purpose 2 and look forward to the work on this area in Phase 2. Just wanted to clarify that so as to make the consensus designation efforts clearer. Thank You. -Ben

1 0

For review - updated language recommendations #11 and #18
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As discussed during today’s meeting, please find attached the updates discussed and agreed to for recommendation #11 (city field) and #18 (reasonable access). Please share with the list as soon as possible if in your view these changes do not align with the agreements reached 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…>.

4 5

GAC statement to phase 1 final report
by Heineman, Ashley Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear Kurt, Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself. Thanks kindly, Ashley Heineman Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

3 3

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Tuesday, 19 February 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Tuesday, 19 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/EYU2Bg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-19feb19… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3sgzxt3fww/ ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Confirming objections to recommendation #16 - geographic basis
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Per today’s meeting, the staff support team has currently noted the following groups as not supporting recommendation #16 (“The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.”): * ALAC * SSAC * IPC * BC If your group is missing, or your group’s position has changed as a result of today’s discussion, please let us know as soon as possible so this can be accurately documented in the Final Report in relation to this recommendation, as well as factored into the consensus designation process. 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…>.

2 1

Proposed agenda - EPDP Team meeting #47
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the updated agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday 20 February at 14.00 UTC. Please take note of one additional item that was inadvertently left off in the previous version in relation to recommendation #14 (Privacy / Proxy). Crossed out items were covered during today’s meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika =========== EPDP Meeting #47 Agenda Wednesday 20 February 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (15 minutes) a. Recap of GNSO Council briefing on 14 Feb b. Quiet period recap of input received and proposed next steps c. Discussion of proposed way forward as described in email and document 3. Discussion of items for amendment and final discussion: * Recommendation 18 – Reasonable Access / Lawful Disclosure (30 minutes) * Recommendation 11 – City field (30 minutes) i. consider legal guidance ii. considered proposed consensus approach for Phase 2 * Recommendation 16 – Geographic considerations – consider proposed approach given anticipated legal advice during Phase 2 (30 minutes) * Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars (30 minutes), consider: i. Tech contact issue ii. legal guidance received regarding notice and consent requirements iii. possible Phase 2 discussion * Recommendation 9 – Contractual Compliance – consider clarification (30 minutes) * Recommendation 12 – Organization field – consider clarification (30 minutes) * Recommendation 17 – Natural v Legal distinctions – consider clarification (30 minutes) * NEW – Recommendation #14 – Privacy / Proxy Registrations – consider clarification and possible implementation guidance proposed (30 minutes) 4. NEW - Confirm groups for any recommendations that are designated as having ‘strong support, significant opposition’ as this information is to be included in the Final Report. (15 minutes) (see latest version of Consensus Designations document) 5. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes) 19 February 2019 EPDP Team Meeting (if necessary) * Consider issues flagged as a result of the quiet period review and consider how these should be addressed EPDP Team 20 February 2019 EPDP Team Meeting (if necessary) * Consider issues flagged as a result of the quiet period review and consider how these should be addressed EPDP Team 20 February 2019 Final Report Submit Final Report or confirm that version submitted on 11 February should be considered final Staff Support Team / Council Liaison 21 February 2019 Consider Final Report for adoption GNSO Council 4 March 2019 Consider Final Report for adoption (if needed) GNSO Council 6. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) 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

Kurt's email down
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Everyone: My email address: kurt(a)kjpritz.com is currently not receiving emails. If you wish to reach me individually for any reason, please sent the email to kp(a)art.art. I am receiving emails sent to the epdp list. I am working on resolving the issue. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience Kurt

1 0