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

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call B call on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. 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 Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/rds-leadership/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zIsWBg Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear all, Non-members can follow the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP - Small Call A call on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2.5 hours. 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 Small Call A AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers for Small Call A: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-sc-budget/ No Meeting Audio Cast will be provided, if that should cause issues, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

CANCELLED / Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Terri Agnew Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

** This meeting has been cancelled due to Small Team A and B replacing it with different join information (updated join information to be sent out shortly). Please remember to remove this from 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/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

EPDP small team meetings
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Based on the feedback received on the mailing list, the leadership team has decided to move forward with two small teams this week who will be tasked with considering the less controversial comment categories and make recommendations for edits (if any) to the existing, agreed-upon recommendations. Each group is expected to appoint one main representative to each small team. Other members are also welcome to join, but only the main representative is expected to do the bulk of the talking to ensure that every group has an opportunity to have their views heard. Alternates are only expected to join if they are replacing a member who is not able to attend. Representatives (and other members joining) are expected to have reviewed the PCRTs for the topics listed for their respective small team below, with the following question in mind: “What comments/arguments provide new information / rationale, if any, that merit group discussion and possible changes / refinements? For each small team, at a minimum, 5 topics listed below are expected to be covered, so please make sure you have reviewed all assigned topics. At the start of the meeting, the chair will ask the representatives to identify for which purposes and/or recommendations comments / arguments have been identified that merit group discussion so that the small team can deep dive into those and consider possible recommendations for EPDP Team consideration. Small team A and B will cover: Small Team ASmall Team B Purpose 1 - Establish the rights of a Registered Name Holder Purpose 3 - Enable communication with RNH Recommendation #15 - URS / UDRPRecommendation #16 - Instructions for RPM PDP WG Recommendation #18 - Data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers (incl. Question #4)Recommendation #19 - Transfer Policy Recommendation #22 - Impact on other policies Purpose 5 - Handling Contractual Compliance Recommendation #6 - Escrow ProvidersRecommendation #10 - Email communication Recommendation #12 - Reasonable accessRecommendation #13 - Controller Agreement Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data Purpose 7 - gTLD registration policy eligibility criteria Recommendation #17 - Input from RPM PDP WG to inform subsequent access discussionRecommendation #20 - Input to Transfer Policy review (incl. Question #5) Purpose 6 - Resolution of DRPsRecommendation #11 - Data retention Recommendation #14 - Responsible parties As noted previously: Small team member reps are expected to keep their respective groups informed about the deliberations. To do so, some topics discussed during the Tuesday meeting might wrap up during the Thursday meeting so that an interim consultation might take place. The plenary is expected to grant great deference to the findings of the small teams. If a member of the plenary has an interest in a certain topic and is not included on that small team, that member is expected to contact her/his group’s small team member prior to the Tuesday meeting to provide input. [Rationale: if we re-litigate each small group conclusion, this approach will decrease our efficiency rather than the opposite.] In reviewing the input received, EPDP Team members are expected to look at the comments in their totality and not advocate for a comment that has been submitted by his / her respective group (an EPDP Team member may explain a certain position, if asked by another team member). [Rationale: the same deference must be paid to comments made by those without representative team members.] During the small team calls, the Chair and Vice-Chair will endeavor to represent the comments not belonging to an SO/AC or SG/C. Because these comments do not have a specific advocate within the EPDP Team, the small team members should take care to pay close attention to the comments and accompanying rationales. Please note that separate call notifications will be sent shortly to provide the details for both small team meetings which will run in parallel. Make sure to co-ordinate with your respective groups which small team to join. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team] **Reminder** Meeting Invitation: GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Are the plans to meet in three parallel small groups cancelled? Alan At 07/01/2019 08:43 AM, Julie Bisland wrote: Dear all, The thirty-eighth meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Team is scheduled on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. 06:00 PST, 09:00 EST, 15:00 Paris CET, 19:00 Karachi PKT, 23:00 Tokyo JST, (Friday) 01:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yc2bdvj3 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_yc2bdvj3&d…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/-wj_BQ Please ensure you read the below information:

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

ALAC will be able to cover both days. Alan At 05/01/2019 09:18 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Kurt, Just a head's up that for the ALAC, it may not be possible to have an Alternate available for both sessions. We're still working on it, but I thought it right to alert you to the possibility. It might be possible to group together topics that are not of great concern to the ALAC for one of the six meetings. I'll look at that tomorrow. I note that your plan puts particular pressure on the BC, IPC and ISPC who were only allocated a single Alternate over their two Members. On Ayden's "Stakeholder Group" concern, I presumed that this was really a lower-case stakeholder (as in multistakeholder model), capitalized just because it was a title. Alan At 05/01/2019 07:51 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Ayden: That is the rub isn’t it? I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again. I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently, so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase our capacity even more. One assumption I made was that I don’t think we can create small teams without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates, that would restrict us to two groups. I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council. I don’t know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be received in time for meetings in three days' time. I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group. It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach. Let me know your position on it. Thanks and best regards, Kurt > On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>> wrote: > > Hi Kurt, > > Thank you for putting forward this proposal. > > I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal, the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members and the CSG nine members in the process which follows. > > As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date. > > I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Original Message > On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>> wrote: > >> Hi Everyone: >> >> The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. >> >> This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. >> >> Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Kurt >> >> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team > >

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Tuesday, 08 January 2019
by Julie Bisland Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 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/-wj_BQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Hi Ayden: That is the rub isn’t it? I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again. I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently, so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase our capacity even more. One assumption I made was that I don’t think we can create small teams without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates, that would restrict us to two groups. I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council. I don’t know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be received in time for meetings in three days' time. I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group. It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach. Let me know your position on it. Thanks and best regards, Kurt > On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Hi Kurt, > > Thank you for putting forward this proposal. > > I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal, the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members and the CSG nine members in the process which follows. > > As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date. > > I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com> wrote: > >> Hi Everyone: >> >> The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. >> >> This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. >> >> Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Kurt >> >> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >> Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team > >

5 7

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Stephanie Perrin Jan. 6, 2019

Jan. 6, 2019

Here is the link to the Charter Holly, see pages 11-14. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec… Cheers Stephanie On 2019-01-05 22:24, Holly Raiche wrote: Hi Stephanie Please clarify what you mean by ‘alternates are actually alternates’. The ALAC designated 4 people for the EPDP from the beginning - and all four names were supplied. Two would be the regular attendees (Alan and Hadia) and another two (myself and Seun) would follow the processes of the group, without actually attending meetings - but all were seen - at least from ALAC’s view - as members. This works well when the meetings are plenary. But when the meetings are split into three different discussions, then having two of our original four as ‘members' no longer works since - by your statement - those of us who are ‘alternates’ would not be seen as members, leaving one third of the meetings without the agreed representative from each group. So please clarify Holly On Jan 6, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi Kurt, I think the NCSG is perfectly happy with 3 groups. What Ayden is trying to explain here is that we should preserve the SG balance that the GNSO Council agreed to in the Charter. That was to reflect the same balance as exists in the Council. SGs are SGs, constituencies are constituencies as you well know. NCSG is slightly anomalous in that we allow non-affiliated NCSG members to join the SG as a whole. Re the issue of having alternates...what we are insisting on here is that alternates are actually alternates, replacing full members when they are not there....not a way of adding members. I hope this clarifies. If some constituencies object to this approach because they are one person short of the requisite 3 members necessary to staff all three small teams, and they do not trust the other folks in their SG to represent their interests, I would suggest that we go with two groups. I am merely jumping in here as the NCSG Chair to help clarify, I will consult the whole team to make sure this is the consensus position of our SG....but since I was our rep on the Charter drafting team at the GNSO Council, I am pretty aware of how strongly we feel about the need to maintain GNSO Council structure in this particular PDP. I would add that any proposals from the small groups will have to be debated in the group as a whole, so I am not sure how much time we are saving here. Kind regards. Stephanie On 2019-01-05 19:51, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Ayden: That is the rub isn’t it? I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again. I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently, so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase our capacity even more. One assumption I made was that I don’t think we can create small teams without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates, that would restrict us to two groups. I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council. I don’t know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be received in time for meetings in three days' time. I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group. It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach. Let me know your position on it. Thanks and best regards, Kurt On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com><mailto:icann@ferdeline.com> wrote: Hi Kurt, Thank you for putting forward this proposal. I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal, the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members and the CSG nine members in the process which follows. As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date. I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com><mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone: The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. Thanks and best regards, Kurt 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

EPDP Review of Public Comment
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 6, 2019

Jan. 6, 2019

Hi Everyone: The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary. This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team. Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future. Thanks and best regards, Kurt

2 2