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

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 30, 2019

Jan. 30, 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/h5oWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Tuesday, 29 January 2019
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 30, 2019

Jan. 30, 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, 29 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/hZoWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-29jan19… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1z8zgz8l0w/<https://participate.icann.org/p1z8zgz8l0w/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1e3c883343392133…> <https://participate.icann.org/p3qcfj7oeex/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=84cf656755a5fb62…>** 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

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items EPDP Team Meeting #40
by Trang Nguyen Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Thank you, Marika! All, I had provided in the AC chat room links to ICANN org’s responses to EPDP Team’s questions regarding OCTO’s use of registration data, but the links were broken. Here they are again. As mentioned, if the Team has any additional questions for OCTO, Dan and I would be happy to take them to our colleagues in OCTO. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2018-October/000495.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2018-October/000610.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2018-December/001124.html Best, Trang From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:00 PM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items EPDP Team Meeting #40 Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. Please take specific note of action item #4: Action item #4: EPDP Team to indicate if there are any concerns / objections to the addition of ‘maintenance’ to the language for purpose 1, so that it reads: “To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name Holder... Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ============ EPDP Team Meeting #40 Tuesday, 29 January 2019 Notes and Action Items High-level Notes/Actions: Action item #1: Leadership team / Support staff to propose revised wording later today to address input provided during today's meeting in relation to reasonable access. Action item #2: Legal committee to formulate question to obtain clarity for how the proposed additional “purpose” of ICANN Org research could/should be addressed. Via what means ICANN Org, as controller and even though it does not have the data, request data in a GDPR-compliant manner to undertake research. Action item #3: Staff support team to make updates accordingly to data elements workbooks for purpose 5 to cover ARS. Action item #4: EPDP Team to indicate if there are any concerns / objections to the addition of ‘maintenance’ to the language for purpose 1, so that it reads: “To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name Holder... Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: 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 (5 minutes) a. Reminder: process for email discussions and upcoming deadlines (see also https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001342.html) b. Review of outstanding action items c. Other updates, if applicable * Appreciate all the contributions that have been made on the mailing list over the last few days * Leadership has taken note of the comments in relation to workload * Aim to keep the pace and work towards final report - need to determine what is necessary for the report to be meaningful. * Try to close of as many issues as possible on the mailing list, but may need to come back to some of those during calls. * Urge to focus on what is really important in the recommendations - avoid wordsmithing for the sake of improving the language. * Wiki page will include the latest information: https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg. * As deadlines close, leadership will review input received and make a recommendation on how to move forward. This could be in the form of a 'final' version to be reviewed on list or during a meeting. * Important to note which of these questions / recommendations could benefit / improve with more time and which would remain the same. Not spend more time on those latter items. * Planned publication date for Final Report is 11 February to align with GNSO Council document deadlines. Special Council meeting has been scheduled for 14 Feb which would allow for Council review / discussion, followed by a possible vote during the 21 Feb meeting. This would allow consideration by the ICANN Board prior to the 25 May expiration date. * Need sufficient time to allow members to consult with their respective groups. Think about ways to already get input from members before formal consensus call takes place. * As a reminder, a consensus call is not about asking people to express consensus for the report or recommendations, but it is about the chair indicating the consensus level he believes that have been achieved. Members are then asked to indicate whether or not these designations accurately reflect the positions of the group. 3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report and/or revised recommendations a. Recommendation 5 – Data elements to be transferred from registrar to registry: the team will review the public comments while small teams will review the data elements (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Data that can be transferred is a matter of legal assessment, not want or desire. EPDP Team has gone through this legal analysis as part of its work. Where there is a legal basis (6.1(f)), such data may be transferred. * Many of the comments are on opposite ends to the spectrum. For our purposes, need to recognize that the concepts of thin / thick do not serve our purpose here, also in the context of the GDPR. RDS PDP WG came to a similar conclusion - identified minimum public data set (baseline set of elements). Registries / registrars are free to add additional data elements under purpose 7. Need to forget about thick / thin - we are creating something new. * EPDP Team has factored in data minimization and which data is required. * Approach that has been taken at the outset is that purpose for processing data were identified, followed by data elements analysis and subsequent data processing steps that found which data elements are required to be transferred to registries. * Consider distinguishing between base set and base set plus additional data elements. To be further considered by Data Elements Workbooks small team. * Registrars are not opposed transmitting data to registry but have maintained that whether it is done or not is predicated on a legal justification for that data sharing. That case needs to be made outside of the purposes identified by the EPDP Team. Dependent on the registries making the case that registrars 'must'. Need to change vocabulary. Registrars would NOT support transferring millions of records to a Registry that does not or cannot justify why they need this data. * There is an existing consensus policy that will need to factored in. Note that recommendation #22 already refers to Thick Whois as one of the policies that will need to consider how the EPDP Team recommendations potentially impact that policy and its implementation. * Thick WHOIS IRT will need to review potential impact of these recommendations on its work. * Agreement from the group to proceed this way - In relation to the questions raised in relation to thick WHOIS, the EPDP team refers commenters to the analysis in the Final Report for which data elements may be transferred from registrars to registries, but also noted that per recommendation #22, the impact of these recommendations on the Thick WHOIS policy will need to be assessed during the implementation phase. (Consider how to further clarify this language per the discussions during the meeting) b. Recommendation 12 Reasonable Access (30 minutes) i. Review of updated language circulated by Alex Deacon on behalf of small team - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001327.html (5 minutes) ii. Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * See revised language shared by Alex Deacon. * Aims to add further detail in relation to the items to be further considered in the context of 'reasonable'. Aim to create a feedback loop over time so that process can be improved over time. * See input from RrSG and responses from Alex. * Hesitant to put specific timelines in. May need to distinguish between urgent requests for which a shorter timeline is essential. A subpoena/warrant/court order is always an "Express Lane". Consider something like: "without unreasonable delay, but ordinarily not more than 30 business days from receipt." * Each data element needs a legal basis as to why it should be disclosed. * There should be flexibility for the CPs. Responses might need to be different than what has been offered and a response may also be to provide a subset of the data that has been requested. * How to deal with voluminous requests? Would that impact the deadline? * Consider strengthening language that currently says are 'further explored as part of the implementation'? * Need to consider how CPs can deal with requests in new environment. What is technically reasonable? What can be automated? * Focus on the policy language that sets policy goals for the interim period while further work is undertaken on the standardized access model as well as part of implementation. * How can data be made available to LE outside of the EU? Consider adding a point to the recommendation to consider this as part of implementation. * The more details that are added, the more time that may needed for groups to review. * Need a permanent disclosure policy going forward as not every entity may be able to accredit in a future access model. * Wording needs to set limit but also set expectations so that the limit is not the norm. * Should go beyond best practices, and need something sooner rather than later. Need to make it more clear what reasonable access means. * How to deal with registrars that are not at the table - important that compliance can take action against those as it is not about those that are actively collaborating with requestors. * Consider asking legal counsel for advice on whether ICANN Org research can be captured under purpose 2, whether it is already foreseen under GDPR (ability of controller to do research) or whether a separate purpose needs to be created. Action item #1: Leadership team / Support staff to propose revised wording later today to address input provided during today's meeting in relation to reasonable access. 10 minute break c. Recommendation #1 – Additional Purposes (20 minutes) i. Review input received to date (RrSG, ALAC, NCSG) (5 minutes) (see attached) ii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * See summary document that was circulated that contains input received to date. * New recommendation on additional purposes: see conclusions reached by Milton, no other purposes identified that require further discussion, apart from those already on the list. * ARS is a compliance activity as such capturing it as part of purpose 5 by updating references to ICANN Compliance to ICANN Org would remove the need to consider a separate purpose. * In relation to research, see also input from legal counsel on how this might fall under controller ability to undertake research. Is access of data by OCTO just another access question under purpose 2 or does it require a separate purpose? Is the work significantly different that it requires a separate purpose? ICANN Org has indicated that no additional data is currently used or needed to carry out responsibilities. Could this be addressed by Purpose 2, even though focus is on third parties? No, this is unlikely to apply. Could you make purpose 2 apply to ICANN Org? Or Purpose 5 - Compliance? Need to test legality. Need to clarify with legal counsel whether ICANN as controller, even though it does not have the data, it cannot request it to undertake research, per the GDPR. * Would need requirements from OCTO to be able to determine what is needed. ICANN Org would need to indicate what is needed for this to be a purpose. See previous responses on this topic: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ. If data is needed in the future, it would be hashed data. We are not discussing what ICANN should do in the future, but what ICANN does now. * EPDP Team Agreement: Address ARS as part of purpose 5 by making the updates as suggested by Alan Greenberg (change reference to ICANN Compliance to ICANN Org). Action item #2: Legal committee to formulate question to obtain clarity for how the proposed additional “purpose” of ICANN Org research could/should be addressed. Via what means ICANN Org, as controller and even though it does not have the data, request data in a GDPR-compliant manner to undertake research. Action item #3: Staff support team to make updates accordingly to data elements workbooks for purpose 5 to cover ARS. * Purpose 1 – proposal by BC to add “maintenance” Action item #4: EPDP Team to indicate if there are any concerns / objections to the addition of ‘maintenance’ to the language for purpose 1, so that it reads: “To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name Holder... d. Recommendation 11 – Data retention (20 minutes) i. Review small team recommendation and input provided (RySG, RrSG, GAC) (5 minutes) (see attached) ii. Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Deferred to next meeting / mailing list 4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. Updated Timeline (see attached) b. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK… [drive.google.com] c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL… [docs.google.com] 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any 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

Notes and action items EPDP Team Meeting #40
by Marika Konings Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. Please take specific note of action item #4: Action item #4: EPDP Team to indicate if there are any concerns / objections to the addition of ‘maintenance’ to the language for purpose 1, so that it reads: “To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name Holder... Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ============ EPDP Team Meeting #40 Tuesday, 29 January 2019 Notes and Action Items High-level Notes/Actions: Action item #1: Leadership team / Support staff to propose revised wording later today to address input provided during today's meeting in relation to reasonable access. Action item #2: Legal committee to formulate question to obtain clarity for how the proposed additional “purpose” of ICANN Org research could/should be addressed. Via what means ICANN Org, as controller and even though it does not have the data, request data in a GDPR-compliant manner to undertake research. Action item #3: Staff support team to make updates accordingly to data elements workbooks for purpose 5 to cover ARS. Action item #4: EPDP Team to indicate if there are any concerns / objections to the addition of ‘maintenance’ to the language for purpose 1, so that it reads: “To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name Holder... Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: 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 (5 minutes) a. Reminder: process for email discussions and upcoming deadlines (see also https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001342.html) b. Review of outstanding action items c. Other updates, if applicable * Appreciate all the contributions that have been made on the mailing list over the last few days * Leadership has taken note of the comments in relation to workload * Aim to keep the pace and work towards final report - need to determine what is necessary for the report to be meaningful. * Try to close of as many issues as possible on the mailing list, but may need to come back to some of those during calls. * Urge to focus on what is really important in the recommendations - avoid wordsmithing for the sake of improving the language. * Wiki page will include the latest information: https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg. * As deadlines close, leadership will review input received and make a recommendation on how to move forward. This could be in the form of a 'final' version to be reviewed on list or during a meeting. * Important to note which of these questions / recommendations could benefit / improve with more time and which would remain the same. Not spend more time on those latter items. * Planned publication date for Final Report is 11 February to align with GNSO Council document deadlines. Special Council meeting has been scheduled for 14 Feb which would allow for Council review / discussion, followed by a possible vote during the 21 Feb meeting. This would allow consideration by the ICANN Board prior to the 25 May expiration date. * Need sufficient time to allow members to consult with their respective groups. Think about ways to already get input from members before formal consensus call takes place. * As a reminder, a consensus call is not about asking people to express consensus for the report or recommendations, but it is about the chair indicating the consensus level he believes that have been achieved. Members are then asked to indicate whether or not these designations accurately reflect the positions of the group. 3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report and/or revised recommendations a. Recommendation 5 – Data elements to be transferred from registrar to registry: the team will review the public comments while small teams will review the data elements (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Data that can be transferred is a matter of legal assessment, not want or desire. EPDP Team has gone through this legal analysis as part of its work. Where there is a legal basis (6.1(f)), such data may be transferred. * Many of the comments are on opposite ends to the spectrum. For our purposes, need to recognize that the concepts of thin / thick do not serve our purpose here, also in the context of the GDPR. RDS PDP WG came to a similar conclusion - identified minimum public data set (baseline set of elements). Registries / registrars are free to add additional data elements under purpose 7. Need to forget about thick / thin - we are creating something new. * EPDP Team has factored in data minimization and which data is required. * Approach that has been taken at the outset is that purpose for processing data were identified, followed by data elements analysis and subsequent data processing steps that found which data elements are required to be transferred to registries. * Consider distinguishing between base set and base set plus additional data elements. To be further considered by Data Elements Workbooks small team. * Registrars are not opposed transmitting data to registry but have maintained that whether it is done or not is predicated on a legal justification for that data sharing. That case needs to be made outside of the purposes identified by the EPDP Team. Dependent on the registries making the case that registrars 'must'. Need to change vocabulary. Registrars would NOT support transferring millions of records to a Registry that does not or cannot justify why they need this data. * There is an existing consensus policy that will need to factored in. Note that recommendation #22 already refers to Thick Whois as one of the policies that will need to consider how the EPDP Team recommendations potentially impact that policy and its implementation. * Thick WHOIS IRT will need to review potential impact of these recommendations on its work. * Agreement from the group to proceed this way - In relation to the questions raised in relation to thick WHOIS, the EPDP team refers commenters to the analysis in the Final Report for which data elements may be transferred from registrars to registries, but also noted that per recommendation #22, the impact of these recommendations on the Thick WHOIS policy will need to be assessed during the implementation phase. (Consider how to further clarify this language per the discussions during the meeting) b. Recommendation 12 Reasonable Access (30 minutes) i. Review of updated language circulated by Alex Deacon on behalf of small team - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001327.html (5 minutes) ii. Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * See revised language shared by Alex Deacon. * Aims to add further detail in relation to the items to be further considered in the context of 'reasonable'. Aim to create a feedback loop over time so that process can be improved over time. * See input from RrSG and responses from Alex. * Hesitant to put specific timelines in. May need to distinguish between urgent requests for which a shorter timeline is essential. A subpoena/warrant/court order is always an "Express Lane". Consider something like: "without unreasonable delay, but ordinarily not more than 30 business days from receipt." * Each data element needs a legal basis as to why it should be disclosed. * There should be flexibility for the CPs. Responses might need to be different than what has been offered and a response may also be to provide a subset of the data that has been requested. * How to deal with voluminous requests? Would that impact the deadline? * Consider strengthening language that currently says are 'further explored as part of the implementation'? * Need to consider how CPs can deal with requests in new environment. What is technically reasonable? What can be automated? * Focus on the policy language that sets policy goals for the interim period while further work is undertaken on the standardized access model as well as part of implementation. * How can data be made available to LE outside of the EU? Consider adding a point to the recommendation to consider this as part of implementation. * The more details that are added, the more time that may needed for groups to review. * Need a permanent disclosure policy going forward as not every entity may be able to accredit in a future access model. * Wording needs to set limit but also set expectations so that the limit is not the norm. * Should go beyond best practices, and need something sooner rather than later. Need to make it more clear what reasonable access means. * How to deal with registrars that are not at the table - important that compliance can take action against those as it is not about those that are actively collaborating with requestors. * Consider asking legal counsel for advice on whether ICANN Org research can be captured under purpose 2, whether it is already foreseen under GDPR (ability of controller to do research) or whether a separate purpose needs to be created. Action item #1: Leadership team / Support staff to propose revised wording later today to address input provided during today's meeting in relation to reasonable access. 10 minute break c. Recommendation #1 – Additional Purposes (20 minutes) i. Review input received to date (RrSG, ALAC, NCSG) (5 minutes) (see attached) ii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * See summary document that was circulated that contains input received to date. * New recommendation on additional purposes: see conclusions reached by Milton, no other purposes identified that require further discussion, apart from those already on the list. * ARS is a compliance activity as such capturing it as part of purpose 5 by updating references to ICANN Compliance to ICANN Org would remove the need to consider a separate purpose. * In relation to research, see also input from legal counsel on how this might fall under controller ability to undertake research. Is access of data by OCTO just another access question under purpose 2 or does it require a separate purpose? Is the work significantly different that it requires a separate purpose? ICANN Org has indicated that no additional data is currently used or needed to carry out responsibilities. Could this be addressed by Purpose 2, even though focus is on third parties? No, this is unlikely to apply. Could you make purpose 2 apply to ICANN Org? Or Purpose 5 - Compliance? Need to test legality. Need to clarify with legal counsel whether ICANN as controller, even though it does not have the data, it cannot request it to undertake research, per the GDPR. * Would need requirements from OCTO to be able to determine what is needed. ICANN Org would need to indicate what is needed for this to be a purpose. See previous responses on this topic: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ. If data is needed in the future, it would be hashed data. We are not discussing what ICANN should do in the future, but what ICANN does now. * EPDP Team Agreement: Address ARS as part of purpose 5 by making the updates as suggested by Alan Greenberg (change reference to ICANN Compliance to ICANN Org). Action item #2: Legal committee to formulate question to obtain clarity for how the proposed additional “purpose” of ICANN Org research could/should be addressed. Via what means ICANN Org, as controller and even though it does not have the data, request data in a GDPR-compliant manner to undertake research. Action item #3: Staff support team to make updates accordingly to data elements workbooks for purpose 5 to cover ARS. * Purpose 1 – proposal by BC to add “maintenance” Action item #4: EPDP Team to indicate if there are any concerns / objections to the addition of ‘maintenance’ to the language for purpose 1, so that it reads: “To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name Holder... d. Recommendation 11 – Data retention (20 minutes) i. Review small team recommendation and input provided (RySG, RrSG, GAC) (5 minutes) (see attached) ii. Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Deferred to next meeting / mailing list 4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. Updated Timeline (see attached) b. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK… [drive.google.com] c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL… [docs.google.com] 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any 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

4 sessions per Week for EPDP
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Dear Kurt Dear All Good Morning Geneva time What is the issude of having 4 sessions of three hours each per Week pls ? Who has proposed that ? What are the logiocs behind that? Regards Kavouss

1 0

Recommendation 1 Purpose 1 - RrSG Comments
by Sarah Wyld Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Hello All, For Recommendation 1 Purpose 1, the RrSG has the following comments: * Rename this to: Further Processing of Data. * Within the ICANN context we want to process data collected for a different purpose to be further processed for research purposes o What is research within the ICANN context? And does it have scientific purposes? o Is the ARS Reporting system research, or as the name indicates a reporting system that flags possible incorrect data? And is this not already in scope of the GDPR? o Art 89 and relevant recitals in scope due to whatever research is within the ICANN context? o Depending on the research do Art 17 and 21 apply? * *In short with the above in mind, what does the WG think is research and does it require processing of personal data?* -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

3 2

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: Recommendation 1 Purpose 1 - RrSG Comments
by Trang Nguyen Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Dear Theo, Regarding your first question, the processing activity is publication of the public WHOIS data, which may contain personal data. Regarding your second question, apologies for the incorrect link. Please refer to this link instead, which lists other dispute policies/procedures: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dndr-2012-02-25-en. Best, Trang From: Theo Geurts <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl> Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:03 AM To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>, Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com>, "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Recommendation 1 Purpose 1 - RrSG Comments Hi Trang, Can you be more specific about the processing activity in your first question? Purpose 6, is focused on disputes, I am not sure why the rest should be in scope? Thanks, Theo On 26-1-2019 1:38, Trang Nguyen wrote: Hello All, Regarding Recommendation #1, ICANN org has the following questions and would appreciate clarification from EPDP Team: * There are processing activities related to public WHOIS, which could contain personal data, it would be helpful if the EPDP Team could clarify which purpose(s) this processing activity would fall under. * Purpose 6: Does the text of this purpose mean that registration data could no longer be used for policies and procedures not specified in the purpose, such as those policies and procedures listed at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/appendix-11-2013-07-08-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>? Best, Dan & Trang ICANN Org Liaisons From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Organization: Tucows Date: Friday, January 25, 2019 at 1:14 PM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org"<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Recommendation 1 Purpose 1 - RrSG Comments Hello All, For Recommendation 1 Purpose 1, the RrSG has the following comments: * Rename this to: Further Processing of Data. * Within the ICANN context we want to process data collected for a different purpose to be further processed for research purposes * What is research within the ICANN context? And does it have scientific purposes? * Is the ARS Reporting system research, or as the name indicates a reporting system that flags possible incorrect data? And is this not already in scope of the GDPR? * Art 89 and relevant recitals in scope due to whatever research is within the ICANN context? * Depending on the research do Art 17 and 21 apply? * In short with the above in mind, what does the WG think is research and does it require processing of personal data? -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Recommendation 14 - Responsible Parties: email discussion
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Hi Everyone: With the goal of progressing (even more) issues via email, the leadership team has considered the discussion during the most recent planary conference call and suggests the following language to capture the agreement in principle that was developed on Recommendation 14 (Responsible Parties). Based on the discussion of the EPDP meeting on 22 Jan 2019, the amendment below is proposed for EPDP Team consideration. Initial Report Language The EPDP Team recommends that the policy includes the following data processing activities as well as responsible parties: <See Initial Report Language>. Plenary Discussion on this Issue It was stated that the EPDP Team documented the data processing activities and responsible parties associated with gTLD registration data based upon data analysis and facts available at the time of the Phase I discussion. The EPDP Team acknowledged that, given the iterative nature between the development of GDPR-compliant agreements and the specification of data processing activities & responsible parties, whatever Recommendation is made at this time is likely to be affected by the completion of the necessary agreements, i.e., that contract development work would confirm and define the roles and responsibilities. Proposed Updated Language: During Phase 1 of its work, the EPDP Team documented the data processing activities and responsible parties associated with gTLD registration data. The EPDP Team, accordingly, recommends the inclusion of the data processing activities and responsible parties, outlined below, to be confirmed and documented in the relevant data processing agreements, noting, however, this Recommendation may be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements (described elsewhere in this report) that would confirm and define the roles and responsibilities. Action Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about these modifications and/or what other aspects of this recommendation should be discussed. If there are additional questions for ICANN Compliance that would serve to inform the deliberations on this recommendation, please share these also. Deadline: Monday, 28 January, additional email discussion might follow depending on responses. Best regards, Kurt

4 3

RrSG Comment on Recommendation 10
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Greetings! Subject to a friendly amendment to part 1, RySG supports the RrSG’s proposed text of Recommendation 10. Our suggested friendly amendment is to specify and quote the relevant language from the Temporary Specification to avoid any future uncertainty. As amended, part 1 below reads: 1. In relation to facilitating email communication between third parties and the Registered Name Holder, the EPDP Team recommends that current requirements in Section 2.5.1 of Appendix A to the Temporary Specification, namely, "Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself", remain in place. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. K From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 4:14 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG Comment on Recommendation 10 Hello All, For Recommendation 10, the RrSG has the following proposed new text: 1) In relation to facilitating email communication between third parties and the Registered Name Holder, the EPDP Team recommends that current requirements in the Temporary Specification that specify that a Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself, remain in place. 2) The EPDP Team recommends Registrars MUST maintain Log Files, which shall not contain any Personal Information, and which shall contain confirmation that a relay of the communication between the requestor and the Registered Name Holder has occurred, not including the origin, recipient, or content of the message. The registrar cannot be reasonably expected to confirm, or attempt to confirm by any means, the receipt of any such relayed communication. 3) DELETE 3 -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG ePDP team" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-epdp-team(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/dd2b3a8708744c1781c4d7d6d8…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/dd2b3a8708744c1781c4d7d6d8…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG ePDP team" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-epdp-team(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-epdp-team@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/d31260ffcc45439ab74a9c1226…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-epdp-team/d31260ffcc45439ab74a9c1226…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #40
by Marika Konings Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached an updated document for item 3c as, in addition to the comments on the new recommendation in relation to additional purposes, there was also some input received on purpose 1 and a couple of ICANN org questions. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 08:57 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #40 Dear EPDP Team, Please find hereunder the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC. Also take note of the documents that are attached to facilitate deliberations on the different agenda items. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ===================== EPDP Meeting #40 Agenda Tuesday, 29 January 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 1. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) * Reminder: process for email discussions and upcoming deadlines (see also https://community.icann.org/x/VZwWBg and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001342.html) * Review of outstanding action items * Other updates, if applicable 1. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report and/or revised recommendations * Recommendation 5 – Data elements to be transferred from registrar to registry: the team will review the public comments while small teams will review the data elements (30 minutes) * Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) * Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 12 Reasonable Access (30 minutes) i. Review of updated language circulated by Alex Deacon on behalf of small team - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001327.html (5 minutes) ii. Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 10 minute break * Recommendation #1 – Additional Purposes (20 minutes) * Review input received to date (RrSG, ALAC, NCSG) (5 minutes) (see attached) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Recommendation 11 – Data retention (20 minutes) * Review small team recommendation and input provided (RySG, RrSG, GAC) (5 minutes) (see attached) * Consider updated language – does it address the concerns expressed during the public comment? (20 minutes) * Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) 1. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) * Updated Timeline (see attached) * See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoK…) * Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnL…) 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any 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