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

Recommendation 12
by Alex Deacon Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

All, At the very end of our face to face a very small team (tiny team?) met to discuss updates to Recommendation 12 (reasonable access). The redline attached is where we ended up. Thanks. Alex ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009

3 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Extreme workload warning!
by James M. Bladel Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

I’d like to echo Stephanie’s concerns, below. After two weeks of being AWOL (ePDP Toronto and GNSO Los Angeles), my employer is anxious for me to turn my attention to my real job. I will not be joining the additional sessions next week, nor do I recall our discussing or agreeing to this ask. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:08 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Extreme workload warning! Dear fellow EPDP members and staff: While I understand that we have a deadline to meet, and we do not wish to push any more work than absolutely necessary to the next phase of our WHOIS policy development, I would like to push back on the amount of activity that we are now expected to join over the next couple of weeks in order to push the EPDP final report over the finish line. Many of us have busy lives beyond ICANN, and cannot drop everything to attend 4 three hour plenary meetings a week, let alone the other small team meetings (and respond to the list). Given that we have achieved really only a modest level of consensus on our policy recommendations to date, I would like to register a very strong warning that we will not accept changes to the text that have not been agreed in full committee with full attendance. This appears to be a golden opportunity for those who are being paid to work full time on lobbying for certain outcomes, to insert or reinsert their favorite language into the text. In the name of maintaining the integrity of the multi-stakeholder process, flawed as it undoubtedly is, let us resist this and accept the fact that we cannot fix in our last couple of weeks what we lingered over for months. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin Chair NCSG

2 1

Rec # 4: Data Elements collected - email list discussion
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Hello Everyone: As we turn toward the weekend, please review at your convenience the latest addition to the email list discussion. Following deliberations in this week’s plenary meeting, please find below the proposed updates to recommendation #4 having to do with the data elements collected and also our policy discussions regarding the Tech Contact data. The leadership & support teams hope this accurately reflects the current state of deliberations. Also note that the discussion during the meeting this week also resulted in some updates that have been applied to other Recommendations (e.g., Compliance) for how to refer to the data elements workbooks. We’ve included the wording of our policy conclusions but you will note that we did not include the data table itself as that table is be reconsidered by the Data Elements Team. In its discussions, the EPDP Team sought to eliminate reliance upon the data elements workbooks as authoritative and the wording has been adjusted (as it has in other recommendations) to accommodate that. Recommendation #4 - Initial Report Version The EPDP Team recommends that the data elements defined in the data elements workbooks in Annex D are required to be collected by registrars. In the aggregate, this means that the following data elements are to be collected (or automatically generated): Refer to bottom of document for data elements. Recommendation #4 - Updated version The EPDP Team recommends that the data elements listed below (as illustrated in the data elements analysis in Annex D) are required to be collected by registrars. In the aggregate, this means that the following data elements are to be collected, where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements: [[[Include data elements table, including optional and automatically generated fields]]] For further details, see complete data elements matrix. For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option), Registrars are to advise the Registered Name Holder at the time of registration that the Registered Name Holder is free to (1) designate the same person as the registrant (or its representative) as the technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the technical contact person concerned. Note (not part of the policy recommendation): In its most recent deliberations, the EPDP Team: decided that it would be optional for the registered name holder to provide: technical contact name, email, and phone number did not reach agreement on whether it would be optional or required for the registrar to offer the ability to the Registered Name Holder to provide these data elements, The following groups expressed support for requiring registrars to provide the option for the RNH to provide tech contact data: IPC, BC, ALAC, SSAC, and GAC. The following groups expressed support for leaving it optional for registrars to provide the option for the RNH to provide tech contact data: RrSG, RySG and NCSG). Actions: Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about these modifications. Additional discussion will occur as needed. Deadline: Wednesday, 30 January, additional email discussion might follow depending on responses. Thanks and best regards, Kurt

2 1

Extreme workload warning!
by Stephanie Perrin Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Dear fellow EPDP members and staff: While I understand that we have a deadline to meet, and we do not wish to push any more work than absolutely necessary to the next phase of our WHOIS policy development, I would like to push back on the amount of activity that we are now expected to join over the next couple of weeks in order to push the EPDP final report over the finish line. Many of us have busy lives beyond ICANN, and cannot drop everything to attend 4 three hour plenary meetings a week, let alone the other small team meetings (and respond to the list). Given that we have achieved really only a modest level of consensus on our policy recommendations to date, I would like to register a very strong warning that we will not accept changes to the text that have not been agreed in full committee with full attendance. This appears to be a golden opportunity for those who are being paid to work full time on lobbying for certain outcomes, to insert or reinsert their favorite language into the text. In the name of maintaining the integrity of the multi-stakeholder process, flawed as it undoubtedly is, let us resist this and accept the fact that we cannot fix in our last couple of weeks what we lingered over for months. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin Chair NCSG

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 29 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Julie Bisland Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 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/hZoWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #40
by Marika Konings Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

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) * 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) * 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) 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

Question for ICANN Org regarding Registrant Contact Information
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

As requested, here is the draft question to the ICANN org regarding the implications of deleting the RDS Administrative fields. Alan =============== The EPDP is contemplating deleting the RDS elements associated with the Administrative and Billing Contact name and contact information (the Billing fields are not currently published and so there will be no impact). If this were to be done, the Registrant contact information would be the only remaining contact fields for the entity responsible for the registration. Under the 2009 RAA, Registrant email and telephone contacts were optional and so may not have been collected. 21013 RAA, under Data Retention Specification 1.1 says: 1.1. Registrar shall collect the following information from registrants at the time of registration of a domain name (a ?Registration?) and shall maintain that information for the duration of Registrar?s sponsorship of the Registration and for a period of two additional years thereafter: 1.1.1. First and last name or full legal name of registrant; 1.1.2. First and last name or, in the event registrant is a legal person, the title of the registrant?s administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.3. Postal address of registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.4. Email address of registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.5. Telephone contact for registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; ..... Since the 2013 RAA was first available in mid-2013, and RAAs must be renewed every five year, as of mid-2018, there should be no registrars operating under the 2009 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org confirm that all registrars are now operating under the 2013 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org provide its interpretation of the requirement under the RAA Data retention Specification 1.1 whether registrars, as part of their adoption of the 2013 RAA, are required to ensure that Registrant contact email and telephone fields are completed, or whether the phrase "shall maintain that information" (which was validly allowed to be blank at registration time) allows them to preserve any empty Registrant contact fields. If the former, is Contractual Compliance taking any action to ensure that registrars fulfill this obligation?

1 0

EPDP Kobe
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 27, 2019

Jan. 27, 2019

Dear Kurt In reply to my earlier message regarding Travel Support for Kobe meeting of EPDP ,I received the following from secretariat Quote *From Marika Koenig * *Dear All,* *For your information, the following meetings have been requested for the EPDP Team for ICANN64:* - *Saturday, 09 March - 08:30-18:30 * - *Sunday, 10 March - 17:00-18:30* - *Wed, 13 March - 10:30 -12:00* - *Thursday, 14 March - 08:30-10:15* *It will be decided closer to the date whether all these sessions are needed, but at a minimum, the EPDP Team is expected to meet all day on Saturday 9 March. * *Note that no travel support is available for this meeting, but remote participation will be available. Similarly, alternates can be requested to step in for members not attending ICANN64.* *Best regards,* *Caitlin, Berry and Marika* Unquote This announcement is disappointing and frustrating as based on the past experience all these TEAM MEETINGS were provided with travel support. I do not understand nor convinced that why for almost the last f2f meeting there would be no travel support In view of the circumstances some of us encountering, may I request you to seriously consider the matter and provide travel support at least for those who are in special circumstances or those that they asked for that I am awaiting your kind attention and favourable reply as soon as possible allowing us to make the travel arrangement in a smooth manner Regards Kavouss

3 4

BC/IPC Comments on Recommendation 1
by Margie Milam Jan. 26, 2019

Jan. 26, 2019

Dear All, As requested, here comments on the draft final report from the BC and IPC on Recommendation 1: Purpose 1: In lieu of the “Benefits and Responsibilities” language, we propose a slight modification by adding the word “maintenance” as follows: To ensure that a Registered Name Holder may exercise its rights in the use, maintenance, and disposition of the Registered Name …” Purpose 2: The report should include the agreement from Toronto similar to what is in Footnote 25 that: “Purpose 2 is a placeholder pending further work on the issue of access in Phase 2 of this EPDP, and will be revisited once this Phase 2 work has been completed.” Line 684: The yellow text should be replaced with actual recommendation, as follows: “The EPDP commits to considering in Phase 2 of this EPDP whether separate purposes should be included for ICANN ORG research and threat response in furtherance of ICANN’s mission, and for the ICANN Accuracy Reporting System (ARS) to continue to be published.” Finally, Footnote 25 is a statement that should not be buried in a footnote, but included in the body of the report. All the best, Margie

1 0

Process for email discussion lists
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Hi Everyone: Thanks for your comments to the mail discussion lists thus far. (You will be glad to know there are a couple more to come!) I know it is somewhat daunting to have these different discussion chains distributed, keeping track of them all and trying to coordinate a position among your groups. Please be assured that: (1) this approach I think is necessary to meet our target dates, but (2) if there is a need to have a verbal discussion on any issue (small group or plenary), we will pause to do that. Now that some comments have been shared, here are some reactions, a slight mid-course correction, and the process for closure. 1) First, it is GREAT that the team seems engaged on the review of the proposed recommendations. 2) Edits should be suggested on behalf of groups, not individuals - to give us a chance at gauging support and also to give us a chance at making our time frames. (We are making this assumption on comments made to date.) 3) As always, please resist wordsmithing. Some of these recommendations were thoroughly negotiated previously. (But we understand short edits can be meaningful and that one word can make a significant difference.) 4) Briefly explain your rationale. While a reason for making a certain amendment might seem to be self-evident to one person, it might be a mystery to another. Others can more easily get behind a recommendation if it is explained. With regards to closing these off, note that each individual “comment forum” has a due date. At the close of each deadline, the support team will state that we have reached the deadline and we will come back to you with questions or a new version (or both) the next business day. Perhaps for each of these, this announcement could be sort of a final warning and that you will have 12 more hours (or say 8 daylight hours in your time zone) to finish an additional comment while we go about the task of compiling them. I hope this is helpful to you. Thank you agiain, good luck and have the best weekend you can. Best regards, Kurt

1 0