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

Notes and action items from EPDP Team Meeting #46
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ========== EPDP Team Meeting #46 Tuesday, 19 February 2019 Notes and Action Items High level notes / actions: Action item #1: EPDP Team Chair to review consensus designations in light of input received and see if any require modifications. Any updates to be shared with the EPDP Team as soon as possible. (Completed) Action item #2: Staff support team to add following language ("Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure") to recommendation #18. Also add "(A finalized time frame to be set during implementation. This discussion is to be prioritized during the implementation discussion.)” (Completed) Action item #3: Staff support team to update recommendation #11 – City field as agreed during meeting and circulate to the team for confirmation that changes align with discussion. (Completed) Action item #4: EPDP Team to confirm which groups cannot live with the inclusion of this recommendation #16 - Geographic basis in the report, recognizing that statements included in the report indicate groups positions on this topic. Action item #5: Staff support team to ensure that accompanying text refers to possibility of study that was considered but no agreement was reached. Questions for ICANN Org: None Notes & Action items These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ. Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates * Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect * Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. * Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (15 minutes) a. Recap of GNSO Council briefing on 14 Feb * Update provided to the GNSO Council during its 14 Feb meeting * Presented updated and detailed timeline for delivery of the Final Report * Explained purpose of quiet period * Question was flagged whether delivery date could be extended, but GNSO Chair noted that this is not possible factoring in the public comment period required by the ICANN Board as well as the GAC consideration of possible public policy concerns. * Provided overview of the recommendations contained in the Final Report b. Quiet period recap of input received and proposed next steps * Appreciate all the work that went into review and input provided as a result of quiet period. * What is take away from statements, responses to consensus calls and comments on recommendations? Items selected for the agenda fell into two camps: 1) open issues where no closure has been achieved, 2) clarifications / accuracy changes. Not appropriate to reconsider items that were previously discussed and agreed - dissent can be noted in the report in relation to the different recommendations. * Consensus designations - Chair to review consensus designations in light of input received and see if any require modifications. Conservative approach taken to date. Action item #1: EPDP Team Chair to review consensus designations in light of input received and see if any require modifications. Any updates to be shared with the EPDP Team as soon as possible. c. Discussion of proposed way forward as described in email and document Input on recommendation 15 - see ALAC comment in relation to TDRP. 3. Discussion of items for amendment and final discussion: a. Recommendation 18 – Reasonable Access / Lawful Disclosure (30 minutes) * Requests for access are reasonable if appropriate info is provided * When such request is received, there is a certain timeframe in which a response is provided, but content (what data is shared) needs to be assessed for GDPR compliance and as such a one-size-fits-approach may not be feasible. * Edits took away some of the nuance behind the section - original intent was that there would be some reasonableness from CPs side in relation what they do with a request. Some kind of baseline, basic understanding that when the request is reasonable, the expectation that CPs are reasonable in what they do. General understanding that CPs need to act lawfully, but there should be reasonable consideration. Could be as simple as adding a bullet at the top of the section dealing with responses that says something like: "Registrars must reasonably consider and accommodate lawful requests for disclosure". This language is aligned with BC/IPC edits for the first bullet. * Adding timeline to the recommendation is unreasonable at this late stage of the process as there has been no time to consider this fully. Original language had already reference to 'X' days so objective was to add some specificity to that, while at the same time allowing for flexibility. CPs not comfortable with the aggressive timelines proposed - also, quiet period was not intended to put forward such substantive changes. Implementation phase is expected to further define what a reasonable response time is. * Need to cooperate on achieving the mutual goal of reasonable response time to requests, including urgent ones. * Some level of metric should be added so that measurement can be conducted. * Reasonable is used for both the type of request and the timeline. * Asking for specificity to ensure that the whole industry is reasonable - provide a benchmark, not a hard, fast timeline. * Do not have all info needed to set a response time at the moment. * Note that RAA requirements include provisions in relation to response times - is actively enforced without a specific SLA. Reasonable and prompt steps should be sufficient for contracted parties to make this evaluation. * Consider settling on a timeframe of 30 days? Too long for certain groups. May not be sufficient for some and too restrictive for others? * Proposal - go back to original language on the timeframe (to be determined during the implementation phase. * Consider adding a clarification that this discussion is prioritized in the implementation phase. "(A finalized time frame to be set during implementation. This discussion is to be prioritized during the implementation discussion.')' Action item #2: Staff support team to add following language ("Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure") to recommendation #18. Also add "(A finalized time frame to be set during implementation. This discussion is to be prioritized during the implementation discussion.')'. Circulate to the team for confirmation that changes align with discussion. b. Recommendation 11 – City field (30 minutes) i. consider legal guidance ii. considered proposed consensus approach for Phase 2 * Legal advice requested (see memo provided by Bird & Bird - https://community.icann.org/x/6YMWBg) Indicated that further research may be needed. * Proposed approach: redact city field for now and take anticipated legal advice into account in phase 2. * City field to be redacted, EPDP team expects legal advice to be received and analysed in phase 2 during which a determination is to be made as to whether this recommendation should be modified. Remove footnote that indicated lack of support. Keep it as a separate recommendation to signal different approach. Action item #3: Staff support team to update recommendation #11 – City field as agreed during meeting and circulate to the team for for confirmation that changes align with discussion. c. Recommendation 16 – Geographic considerations – consider proposed approach given anticipated legal advice during Phase 2 (30 minutes) * See input provided and proposed approach * Appears there is no general support for the proposed path forward. * Consider removing the recommendation? Should this work be taken up by someone else? If the group is silent on it, does that have the same impact as what the recommendation currently recommends? Probably, yes. Some were looking for a commitment to look into this for more details. Legal advice will not make this clearer. * How do CPs wade through different privacy regimes? * NCSG would prefer that policy is uniform across parties, but would be willing to accept the existing recommendation pending legal advice. * How to assist CPs to wade through the different privacy regimes? Each CPs will need to determine how to best deal with local law - ICANN Org does not indemnify CPs. CPs need flexibility to implement. * Need a system that is as unified as possible, but with flexibility for CPs. General rule should be that all users should be able to benefit from the same rights. * Other laws may impose different requirements from GDPR, how to deal with that? * What is the negative impact if the recommendation stays as is? * Possible language to be added to the recommendation: "Contingent upon the outcome of pending legal advice, ICANN org (with GNSO oversight) will undertake a measured study with respect to geographic distinctions. The first phase would include feasibility and cost assessments and, if found to be feasible, define, a tailored, economical study." Make not part of the recommendation, but make sure that it is referenced in the accompanying text. Action item #4: EPDP Team to confirm which groups cannot live with the inclusion of this recommendation #16 - Geographic basis in the report, recognizing that statements included in the report indicate groups positions on this topic. Action item #5: Staff support team to ensure that accompanying text refers to possibility of study that was considered but no agreement was reached. d. 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 * See input provided and proposed actions * See also legal guidance provided - why is consent needed if info is anonymized? Yes, but there is also the issue of processing by CPs of data of a data subject with which no contractual arrangement exists. * No agreement on what optional means, which is reflected in the Final Report: "Noting some of the possible legal and technical challenges involved in collecting data from a third party, some (RySG, RrSG, NCSG) expressed the view that registrars should have the option, but should not be contractually required, to offer the RNH the ability to provide additional contact fields, e.g., technical function. Others (BC, IPC, ALAC, GAC and SSAC) expressed the view that registrars should be required to offer the RNH this ability, as making this optional could ultimately lead to risks to DNS stability, security and resiliency. The stakeholders supporting this view noted this functionality is considered important and desirable for some RNHs. The Team could not come to agreement on this issue and as such no recommendation is included in this Final Report in relation to whether optional also means, optional or required for the registrar to offer. * See clarifying language that RySG provided - this may help further clarify this recommendation ("The EPDP Team recommends that the data elements, representing the Aggregate Minimum Data Set, listed below are required to be collected by registrars, noting that the collection of some data elements is optional. * No further changes needed at this stage – leave Final Report language as is. e. Recommendation 9 – Contractual Compliance – consider clarification (30 minutes) Deferred to Wednesday’s meeting f. Recommendation 12 – Organization field – consider clarification (30 minutes) Deferred to Wednesday’s meeting g. Recommendation 17 – Natural v Legal distinctions – consider clarification (30 minutes) Deferred to Wednesday’s meeting Action item #6: EPDP Team to review proposed actions for recommendations #9 (Contractual Compliance), #12 (Organization field) and #17 (Natural vs legal) in advance of the meeting and share any feedback with the mailing list. 4. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes) 5. 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

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Feb. 19, 2019

Feb. 19, 2019

**There are calls for both 19 & 20 February. I am sending both invitations now to get them on your calendars.** Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FoU2Bg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 1

Fwd: ISPCP input to draft final report
by Thomas Rickert Feb. 19, 2019

Feb. 19, 2019

I just heard that the below note may not have made it to the list. Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > Von: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Datum: 18. Februar 2019 um 14:26:27 MEZ > An: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> > Kopie: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Betreff: ISPCP input to draft final report > > Kurt, all, > please find below the statement on the draft final report from the ISPCP in addition to the input already provided on the first and second batch of the consensus call. > > Recommendation 5 - optional Tech-C: > > Whilst not opposing recommendation 5, we would like our concern to be noted that our goal should be to have one system that works globally for gTLDs to avoid fragmentation. Therefore, we recommend to amend this recommendation so that > > - the registrar MUST offer the option to provide data for the tech-c and > - the provision of data for a tech-c is optional > > Users should get the same experience and options regardless of what registrar they choose to work with. > > Recommendations 10 / 16 and 17: > > We think that more work needs to be done in order to provide for a system that is globally applicable to avoid fragmentation in terms of RNH rights and user experience. > > Recommendation 18: > > We suggest to include the timelines / procedure as laid down in Art. 15 III GDPR so that there is transparency regarding response times: > > The clause reads: > 1The controller shall provide information on action taken on a request under Articles 15 to 22 to the data subject without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request. 2That period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. 3The controller shall inform the data subject of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay. 4Where the data subject makes the request by electronic form means, the information shall be provided by electronic means where possible, unless otherwise requested by the data subject. > > Additionally, we suggest to include a requirement for contracted parties to publish data on how many disclosure requests they get. That helps the community understand whether response times are corresponding with work load. > > Recommendation 19: > > The EPDP Team chose to dilute the language of this recommendation not to make reference to a specific legal vehicle. As a matter of compromise, reference to the analysis in the report was agreed to be made to inform the implementation and decision on what legal vehicle to use. The report now includes amended language as prepared by ICANN representatives. These changes were not discussed by the EDPDP team and we ask to reinstate the original language of the report to inform the decision-making during the implementation of the recommendation. > > Recommendation 27: > > We support the recommendation as long as it is ensured that > the community is part of the implementation team > the GNSOCouncil as the policy manager has the last saying on any policy amendments according to its PDP rules > Thomas Rickert

1 0

Last chance, last dance
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 19, 2019

Feb. 19, 2019

Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned” from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.” I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice” I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt

5 6

Proposed agenda - EPDP Meeting #46 and #47
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 19, 2019

Feb. 19, 2019

Dear All, Please find the agenda for this week’s meetings (46-47) below. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Meeting #46 & #47 Agenda Tuesday, 19 February 2019; 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) 4. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes) 19 February 2019EPDP 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 2019EPDP 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 2019Final Report Submit Final Report or confirm that version submitted on 11 February should be considered finalStaff Support Team / Council Liaison 21 February 2019Consider Final Report for adoptionGNSO Council 4 March 2019Consider Final Report for adoption (if needed)GNSO Council 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes)

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses
by Matt Serlin Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

Thanks Margie for sending this over and I appreciate the time that I’m sure was put into this. I have a few initial comments but let me be clear these are my own personal comments and not those of the RrSG. While I appreciate (and even personally agree with many of the “minor amendments” you have put forth, I strongly object to the manner in which they have been put forth. The reality is that this group of volunteers have spent thousands of hours discussing and debating these very issues. Everyone had the opportunity to have their views heard and I recall many of these points being discussed among the group, so I don’t believe anyone’s voice was silenced in the process. The fact that not every group’s views were accepted and included in the report is how it should work in this multi-stakeholder model that we have. If every group had the expectation of always getting their way, how could this possible be successful? Take the discussion of the organization field as an example…contracted parties started off with a position of redaction while other groups started with full display. After lengthy discussion and debate, everyone compromised, and we ended up with something in the middle. I pointed to that very issue the other day in describing our work to the broader RrSG team as a successful outcome in the process. How would other groups feel if now we can back and said, “actually for us to sign off on this report, we need to go back to full redaction of the organization field…” I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but what’s to stop every other group from now putting forth their “minor amendments” in order to support the full report. To be clear, I am not speaking for the RrSG and my comments are in no way a reflection of my views on the substance of your points. I’m simply disappointed we have come this far and are so close to a milestone only to seemingly have our entire body of work held hostage. I’m also unsure of how we move forward…you’ve indicated you look forward to “constructive engagement” yet you’re clear that your support is contingent on your five amendments. Apologies for the rant, but thank you for your willingness to read this far ☺ Best regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com> Date: Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 10:29 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP

4 3

Reminder: Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 19 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/EYU2Bg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Legal Advice Received
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

Hi Everyone: I have attached the two latest legal memoranda from Bird & Bird that the EPDP Legal Team has decided to pass on to the full team without comment. The two memoranda answer our questions about: Data Accuracy requirements, and City name redaction / publication I will take the liberty of noting that the "City Name” memo identifies that data element as personal data and then indicates that additional research is required to determine if there is a legal basis for its publication. To me, this fits well with the current recommendation to redact the city name field pending result of additional; independent legal input. Currently, the report reflects the divergence of opinion on this recommendation. We are authorizing Bird & Bird to complete the research. We are currently waiting for an answer regarding geographical aspects. Any questions you have can be posed to the EPDP Legal Team or can also be forwarded to Bird and Bird. Best regards, Kurt

3 2

BC Consensus Call Responses
by Margie Milam Feb. 17, 2019

Feb. 17, 2019

Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP

1 0

RrSG Feedback on Feb. 11 Final phase 1 report
by Matt Serlin Feb. 16, 2019

Feb. 16, 2019

Hi All, Hope everyone is having a good weekend! Please find attached feedback from the RrSG on the Feb. 11 Final Report. Regards, Matt.

1 0