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

Fwd: [Iwgdpt-list] Press Release of the Secretariat: Working Paper "Standards for data protection in cross-border data requests" released
by Stephanie Perrin Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

Colleagues might be interested in this paper on cross border law enforcement issues and data protection standards. Stephanie Perrin -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [Internationale-presse-liste] Press Release / Working Paper "Data Protection in cross-border data requests" released Datum: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:10:38 +0200 Von: Presse <presse(a)datenschutz-berlin.de> An: internationale-presse-liste(a)datenschutz-berlin.de PRESS RELEASE Data protection in cross-border data requests for law enforcement purposes Berlin Group calls for standards The International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications (so-called Berlin Group), chaired by the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Maja Smoltczyk, has adopted the Working Paper ‘Standards for data protection and personal privacy in cross-border data requests for criminal law enforcement purposes’ at its 63 rd meeting in Budapest (Hungary) on 9 and 10 April 2018. Law enforcement has become an international undertaking. As data is more and more exchanged and stored around the world law enforcement authorities increasingly seek access to personal data held beyond their national borders in criminal investigations. In the light of this development transborder access to cloud data has been identified as high priority by governments and led them to take actions in this field. However, cross-border data requests present difficult questions of compliance with national and international data protection and privacy standards. Traditional arrangements to facilitate international coordination by law enforcement agencies as they work now are said to be overburdened by the increasing frequency and complexity of cross-border data requests. However, alternate arrangements for transferring data, like voluntary arrangements between providers and foreign governments, can be subject to varied or unknown standards, do not have force of law, and so provide little assurance of protection for the rights of data subjects. In its recently published Working Paper the Berlin Group urges that current and future legal frameworks must maintain strong data protection standards and makes recommendations for appropriate safeguards. The Working Group calls on governments and international organisations to preserve data protection and privacy interests while encouraging prompt and adequate processing of legitimate cross-border data requests. The Working Paper is available for download at http://www.berlin-privacy-group.org About the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications (“Berlin Group”) The International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications (IWGDPT, a.k.a. “Berlin Group”) includes representatives from Data Protection Authorities and international organisations dealing with privacy matters from all over the world. It was founded in 1983 in the framework of the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners at the initiative of the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection, who has since then been chairing the Group. The Group has adopted numerous recommendations (“Common Positions” and “Working Papers”) aimed at improving the protection of privacy in telecommunications. Since the beginning of the 90s the Group has focused particularly on the protection of privacy on the Internet. More information about the Work of the Group and the documents adopted by the Group are available for download on the website of the Group at http://www.berlin-privacy-group.org. -- International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications - Secretariat - Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Germany) Berliner Beauftragter für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit An der Urania 4 - 10 D - 10787 Berlin Germany Phone: +49 30 13889 - 0 Fax: +49 30 215 50 50 E-Mail: IWGDPT(a)datenschutz-berlin.de http://www.berlin-privacy-group.org

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP held Tuesday, 14 August 2018
by Andrea Glandon Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email. The MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Tuesday, 14 August 2018 at 13:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/oQtpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-14aug18… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p62crjhwq48/<https://participate.icann.org/p62crjhwq48/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e491c17805cccb72…> ** 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

Consensus: more granular approach needed
by Tatiana Tropina Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

Dear all, My name is Tatiana Tropina, I'm an alternate for Milton Mueller for the next few days because he can't attend today's call. I would like to forward his comments (which I fully agree with) on the approach to consensus. Please see below. =================== In determining whether consensus exists on certain key elements of the temp spec, I think we are suffering from the way items were grouped. Some SG’s said “No” because they objected to one thing in the group, but a more granular approach might find wider agreement on certain elements within that grouping. My example here is the responses to Appendix A 2.4., 2.5., 2.5.1. - 2.5.1.3., 2.5.2., 2.6., which deals with how the temp spec redacts certain PII from public Whois. NCSG strongly supports those redactions, and in fact we think ICANN has little choice about it because of the GDPR. However, on the survey we see only 2 SGs supporting that question. If we look closer, however, there is actually not much disagreement with the redaction. Registrars support redaction “but questions whether this data should continue to be collected as they are not necessary, and do not comply with data minimization principle.” So the registrars are conflating the collection issue with the public display issue here. They do support redaction of the data elements listed in the temp spec. So do the Registries. Ry SG comments call attention to the litigation around collection of the redacted data and has some other comments unrelated to the question whether the temp spec’s redaction requirements are acceptable. So again we have a debate about collection rather than display. Even the GAC comments do not dispute that the data should be redacted. They call for changing “redacted for privacy” to “redacted for data protection” in the display, and call for additional text with instructions about how to get access to redacted data. Both SSAC and IPC also do not question that redaction is required for GDPR compliance but question the scope of the redaction, saying that it may not be necessary in cases where GDPR does not apply (however they overlook or ignore the existence of similar data protection laws in other jurisdictions). SSAC also make a somewhat irrelevant call for 2 years data retention (which the EDPB has already questioned). In short, a careful review of the comments shows that there is almost no opposition to the selection of data that the temp spec asks to be redacted. We are close to consensus on that vital issue. If it is lumped in with a bunch of other issues, however, more SGs and ACs can find something they don’t like. Since the redaction is fundamental to the temp spec, let’s pull that out and indicate something close to consensus on it. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology ========= Warm regards, Tatiana

2 1

Request for Adobe Access (Read-only) for Alternates
by Rosette, Kristina Aug. 13, 2018

Aug. 13, 2018

All, On behalf of the RySG, I'm writing to request that EPDP Alternates be granted read-only access to the Adobe Connect room. We are finding that, without access to the Adobe room, it is difficult for the Alternates to follow the meeting fully, to assist Members during the meeting, and to prepare for direct participation (when doing so for a Member). If it would be possible for us to add this request to our agenda for tomorrow (as an AOB), the RySG would appreciate it. I apologize for the short notice, but I had drafted another version of this email on Friday, where it got stuck in my pre-vacation Outbox. Thank you. Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354

1 0

Proposed Agenda for EPDP Tam Meeting #4 (Tuesday 14 August at 13.00 UTC)
by mail＠berrycobb.com Aug. 12, 2018

Aug. 12, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 14 August at 13.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ==================== EPDP Meeting #4 Agenda Thursday, 14 August 2018 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair 3. Summary of responses to EPDP Input Survey Part 2 a. Results for Sections 5-7 (Requirements Applicable to Registry Operators and Registrars) b. Appendices B (Supplemental Data Escrow Requirements) & F (Bulk Registration Data Access to ICANN) 4. Substantive Discussion of Temporary Specification (Sections 5-7 + Appendices B & F) a. Part 2 of the Survey can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7BMRCNS b. Responses and issue summaries are in the Spreadsheet accompanying this agenda 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday 16 August at 13.00 UTC. (Part 3 Survey results due Wednesday, 15 August by close of business.) Thank you. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant

1 0

ICANN Org questions from 7 August EPDP meeting
by Caitlin Tubergen Aug. 10, 2018

Aug. 10, 2018

Dear All, Below, please find answers to the questions posed to ICANN Org from the Tuesday, 7 August EPDP Team meeting. Question: The Team seeks clarification on the exact expiry date of the Temporary Specification. In Section 3, the effective date of the Temporary Specification is 25 May 2018, but was adopted on 17 May 2018. Response: Per Section 3 of the Temporary Specification, the effective date of the Temporary Specification is 25 May 2018. Additionally, the ICANN Board resolution adopting the Temporary Specification states: “The Temporary Specification will be effective for a 90-day period beginning 25 May 2018. The Board will reaffirm its temporary adoption every 90 calendar days for a total period not to exceed one year.” Question: If the Board is considering any amendments to the Temporary Specification, it would be helpful if the EPDP Team can be made aware of any proposed changes in advance. Is the Board currently considering any amendments to the Temporary Specification? To address what requirement? Response: ICANN Org is not aware that any amendments are currently being considered. The Board is scheduled to meet in August to consider reaffirming the Temporary Specification according to the process in ICANN’s agreements for adopting temporary policies and specifications. Question: When ICANN refers to “security” as part of its mission - can ICANN describe what types of security are included?? Response: The word “security” appears 36 times in the ICANN Bylaws in relation to topics such as: the DNS, the Internet, the Internet’s system of unique identifiers, the Internet’s root server systems, the registry database, and Top Level Domains. Question: With regard to the term “content,” in Section 4.4.5 - can ICANN provide context for use of the term? Response: It is generally believed that ICANN does not see itself in the role of a content regulator but there are scenarios where use of the term “content” is appropriate in this section. Section 4.4.5 of the Temporary Specification provides a mechanism for third parties to contact Registered Name Holders to address “technical issues and/or errors with a Registered Name or any content or resources associated with such a Registered Name.” With regards to the question about ICANN being a “content regulator,” Section 1.1.c of ICANN’s Bylaws makes clear that ICANN does not regulate content. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Notes and action items from today's EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018
by Caitlin Tubergen Aug. 9, 2018

Aug. 9, 2018

Dear All, Below, please find notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team Call. As a reminder, our next meeting will be Tuesday, 14 August, 13:00UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin High-level Notes/Actions: Confirmations regarding the face-to-face meeting are expected to be sent out shortly. The message will also include details on how to make travel arrangements. The leadership and support team is considering how to speed up the triage effort - for example, we might continue the triage effort off-line based on survey responses so that we can start substantive discussion sooner, as early as next week. An assessment will be made after today’s meeting. The EPDP Leadership Team compiled the survey results and prepared “issue summaries” to capture the themes within the rationale reported by the Team members. These summaries are a tool to facilitate the discussion and should not be viewed as authoritative; the Team may provide feedback on the issue summaries by responding to the list. The next meeting is Tuesday 14 August at 13.00 UTC. The deadline for submission of Part 2 of the survey is Friday, 10 August at 19:00 UTC; for part 3, the deadline is Wednesday, 15 August at 19:00 UTC. Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP team: Regarding Temporary Specification section 4.4.8 - Supporting a framework to address issues involving domain name registrations: the team requests additional specificity. Does this mean that registrars and registries must support a uniform access mechanism when approved or is there some present requirement? Regarding Temporary Specification section 4.4.13 - Handling contractual monitoring requests: which data sets will be required to measure compliance against which contractual provisions? All Action items: EPDP Team members to complete survey part 2 by Friday, 10 August at 19:00 UTC EPDP Team members to complete survey part 3 by Wednesday, 15 August at 19:00 UTC Question for Org Liaisons: what is the intention behind section 4.4.8? Staff to communicate details regarding EPDP Team meeting as soon as possible. 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/2IpHBQ. 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 Getting close on confirming location and timing of F2F meeting. Announcement is expected to be made later today, including information about how to arrange travel. Please note that third survey is due Wednesday 15 August at 19.00 UTC Leadership considering how to speed up triage effort - for example, continue triage effort off-line based on survey responses and dive into substantive discussion sooner, as early as next week. Will see how this meeting goes and write up thoughts about next steps to be shared with the EPDP Team for input. 3. Summary of responses to EPDP Input Survey Part 1 - Results for Appendix A – Registration Data Directory Services See summary of responses in slide deck Even though the green sections indicate agreement, it sometimes is more about the sentiment that is agreed with, but there are still edits suggested, so review still needed. 4. Substantive Discussion of Temporary Specification (beginning with Section 4.4.7 – 4.4.13, 4.5 and Appendix A - Registration Data Directory Services) – see updated spreadsheet attached. Part 1 of the Survey can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CC6F9F8 4.4.7. Enabling the publication of technical and administrative points of contact administering the domain names at the request of the Registered Name Holder; Issue summary: Opinions not in favor of this section question the utility of this voluntary data submission and whether voluntary data submissions should be included in the temporary specification. RrSG: not so much questioning the voluntary nature but these technical and administrative contacts are a relic from a previous era and hard to justify collection in the context of data minimization principles as outlined under the GDPR. If the contacts are the same/duplicate, then it is not minimized data. If they are different, then how do we track consent between Registrant and the other (Admin/Tech) contacts? Admin/Tech does have utility in some instances - how do registrars establish that these are no longer in use? ICANN policies have different roles and responsibilities relating to those contacts, such as IRTP, WHOIS data reminder, UDRP. This is data that is used to satisfy ICANN policies. 90-95% are estimated to be duplicates between registrant / tech / admin / billing contact. Why collecting and sharing this duplicative information? Tracking consent is an issue when contacts are different. SAC044 specifies: Maintaining administrative and technical contacts plays a role in reducing single points of failure or attack. 4.4.8. Supporting a framework to address issues involving domain name registrations, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, DNS abuse, and intellectual property protection; Issue summary: Explanation opposed to this section is not sufficiently detailed to adequately describe the issue. For example, what is the distinction among DNS Abuse, cybercrime and intellectual property theft? 4.4.9. Providing a framework to address appropriate law enforcement needs; Issue summary: There is a suggestion that LEA access to personal data needn't pass the balancing that data can be disclosed when legitimate and not overridden by fundamental rights. The preamble should refer to Art.6 of the GDPR. Must LEAs demonstrate the right to access data? GAC: Issue summary is correct on 4.4.8 and 4.4.9 - situation needs to be described better. NCSG: 4.4.8 do agree, but with a qualifier / suggestion. Detailing framework for access will come later but need to pinpoint who are the actors with legitimate interests. Also linked to the discussion on ICANN's mission. Put forward proposed replacement text. It seems to imply / create the impression that LEA are always legitimate, but there are plenty of arguments between DPAs and LEA concerning the proportionality. GAC: Article 2 of GDPR states that several categories/types of processing fall outside its scope and thus are NOT subject to the balancing test of Article 6(1)(f). This includes processing for criminal law enforcement and by competent authorities for safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, which falls outside the scope of the GDPR and instead is subject to Directive (EU) 2016/680. Moreover, Article 6 of the GDPR provides for lawful processing in a number of circumstances as set forth in Article 6(1)(a) - (e), such as processing necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, that also are not subject to the balancing test of “overridden by the interest or fundamental rights” in (f). Finally, Article 6(1) also states that (f) “shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.” RrSG: concern about going into content – so summary is correct on 4.4.8. Spec 11 / framework for registry operators to respond to security threats includes what is considered within scope for ICANN (phishing, malware distribution, botnets). May be worth reviewing in this context. Question for Org: what is the intention behind section 4.4.8? There is data that LEA can legally require of organizations - that is limited to the jurisdiction they’re in, work on cross-border transfer in EU being discussed. Tech industry have started recognizing requests for certain types of data from outside its jurisdiction as long as they are not breaking local privacy laws. This voluntary collaboration may not be supported in all jurisdictions. Not ICANN's role to fix MLATs. 4.4.10. Facilitating the provision of zone files of gTLDs to Internet users; Issue summary: Given the distinction between zone file data and registration data, whether zone file contains personal data, and the fact that zone file data is currently available - can this section remain? NCSG & RrSG: not clear on how registration data facilitates provision of zone files of gTLDs to Internet users. Does this belong in a WHOIS spec? There are other processes that support use cases requiring zone file data. Need to also consider other parts of processing, not only collection. May need to be more specific what applies in certain instances? For example, you may collect here for the purpose of safeguarding, but it is actually not shared. Part of the reason for focusing on collection is to think through all the steps that would follow, what processing would take place in addition to collection - if you cannot answer that it the affirmative, should you be collecting the data in the first place? 4.4.11. Providing mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data in the event of a business or technical failure, or other unavailability of a Registrar or Registry Operator; Issue summary: Is it accurate to say there is general approval of this data use so long as ICANN does not have access to the registration data (which is thought to be the case)? RrSG: response to business failure of contracted party is handled by a separate mechanism than WHOIS so it is not relevant. Escrow system is used for that. Isn't escrow escrowing WHOIS data? It is escrowing a subset and a superset of WHOIS data. Some of the information is not published in WHOIS. Isn't it necessary to include it here as it is being used for purposes like escrow? Isn't that one of the reasons why that information is collected? There may be other ways in which the same purpose can be achieved. May need a graphic to describe different steps in detail. Should be clear about what our mission is - main goal is to go through the temp spec and determine whether it should become a consensus policy. Does the temp spec actually deal with everything so that it is compliant with GDPR? There may be some omissions that need to be addressed. If it is registration data it includes all the data that is submitted but also data that may be automatically generated as a result of the domain name registration, which may also become personal information. Need to make sure that we use the same terminology - WHOIS is a display mechanism, registration data itself can have other purposes. 4.4.12. Coordinating dispute resolution services for certain disputes concerning domain names; and Issue summary: Except for the standard registry response, there appears to be consensus support for this section. Recommendations for enhancement can occur in the next step. 4.4.13. Handling contractual compliance monitoring requests, audits, and complaints submitted by Registry Operators, Registrars, Registered Name Holders, and other Internet users. Issue summary: Where there is disagreement with this section, the disagreement focuses on those specific data needs, without which the compliance task would be impossible to accomplish. What are the reasons for compliance having access to this information? Broad array of uses for WHOIS as it relates to compliance activity of ICANN. Important to have access to effectively do their job. May need to ask for specification on what that job to assess if it is a legitimate purpose outweighing the privacy of individuals. 4.5. In considering whether Processing of Personal Data contained in Registration Data is consistent with Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the GDPR requires ICANN to balance the legitimate interests described above with the interests, rights, and freedoms of the affected data subject. ICANN finds that the Processing is proportionate for the following reasons: see 4.5.1., 4.5.2. 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.5.5. Issue summary: Those not supporting this provision found the rationale in sections 4.5.1 et.seq. unconvincing. The alternative approach might be, as discussed earlier, to discuss the data collection and disclosure purposes recommended in 4.1.1 et.seq. and develop this section, if needed, after that. Significant disagreement with this section. May need to be updated / mapped to outcome on other sections such as 4.1.1. and 4.4. Some of the terms in this section may need further clarification such as 'limited' and 'unjustified'. APPENDIX A 1. Registration Data Directory Services 1.2 RDDS Search Capabilities 1.2. RDDS Search Capabilities 1.2.1. Where search capabilities are permitted and offered, Registry Operator and Registrar MUST: (1) ensure such search capability is in compliance with applicable privacy laws or policies; (2) only permit searches on data otherwise available to the querying user, based on whether the user only has access to data publicly available in RDDS or whether the user has access to non-public Registration Data; (3) only provide results otherwise available to the querying user based on whether the user only has access to data publicly available in RDDS or whether the user has access to non-public Registration Data; and (4) ensure such search capability is otherwise consistent with the requirements of this Temporary Specification regarding access to public and non-public Registration Data. 1.2.2. Where search capabilities are permitted and offered, Registry Operator and Registrar MUST offer search capabilities on the web-based Directory Service and the RDAP service (when implemented). Issue Summary: All parties agree that RDAP will be implemented regardless of the date provided in Section 1.1 (which should be removed). There is some uncertainty as to whether a search capability should be a contractual requirement, and whether such a provision such as Section 1 is required at all given the current contract, and also that the risks associated with the aggregation of data must be addressed. RySG: search capabilities are not required for all registries, but new gTLD contract does include language requiring support for search capability. In the base registry agreement there is already language included that should be sufficient as such language in temp spec is unnecessary and more burdensome to implement. For LEA this search ability is really important, even if it is anonymized and likely a redline. Also important for commercial entities who do reverse WHOIS look-ups or correlation analysis. This has been hampered after 25 May so some are of the view that the search capability should be required instead of optional. Does the Registry agreement require this functionality or just allow it? New gTLD RA allows it, but if applicant has said in application that it would offer searchable WHOIS, the applicant is required to include it in the RA. However, it is possible through RSEP to remove searchable WHOIS. RrSG does not support making this mandatory - questioning the legality of offering this as well as the scope of converting WHOIS in a pseudo surveillance system. 2.1 - 2.3 (when data is restricted) Requirements for Processing Personal Data in Public RDDS Where Processing is Subject to the GDPR 2.1. Registry Operator (except where Registry Operator operates a "thin" registry) and Registrar MUST apply the requirements in Sections 2 and 4 of this Appendix to Personal Data included in Registration Data where: the Registrar or Registry Operator is established in the European Economic Area (EEA) as provided in Article 3(1) GDPR and Process Personal Data included in Registration Data; the Registrar or Registry Operator is established outside the EEA and offers registration services to Registered Name Holders located in the EEA as contemplated by Article 3(2) GDPR that involves the Processing of Personal Data from registrants located in the EEA; or the Registrar or Registry Operator is located outside the EEA and Processes Personal Data included in Registration Data and where the Registry Operator or Registrar engages a Processor located within the EEA to Process such Personal Data. 2.2. For fields that Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this Appendix requires to be "redacted", Registrar and Registry Operator MUST provide in the value section of the redacted field text substantially similar to the following: "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY". Prior to the required date of implementation of RDAP, Registrar and Registry Operator MAY: (i) provide no information in the value section of the redacted field; or (ii) not publish the redacted field. 2.3. In responses to domain name queries, Registrar and Registry Operator MUST treat the following Registrant fields as "redacted" unless the Registered Name Holder has provided Consent to publish the Registered Name Holder's data: Registry Registrant ID Registrant Name Registrant Street Registrant City Registrant Postal Code Registrant Phone Registrant Phone Ext Registrant Fax Registrant Fax Ext Issue Summary: Some parties believe that section 2.1 (coupled with sec. 3) is overly broad in that: GDPR data restrictions can be applied globally and include entities (registrars, registries, registrant) located outside the EEA, and data restrictions need not be applied to Legal persons where personal data is not included in the record. Others say that the legal/natural distinction cannot be made a priori and such a distinction is not implementable. Also, the privacy language prescribed (sec. 2.2) could be required prior to RDAP implementation. Some urge additional data be redacted as personal information can be gained from them: e.g., organization name, city, postal code. The Temporary Specification mentions "consent" without a requirement or specification for such. This group may take that up. Should thin registries should be required to move to thick as part of this Temporary Specification? Consider remaining sections at next meeting. Sharing of draft triage document with the EPDP Team will help in completing the triage effort. Leadership hopes to share this shortly with EPDP Team for review. 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday 14 August at 13.00 UTC. (Part 2 Survey results due Friday, 10 August by close of business.)

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP held Thursday, 09 August 2018
by Terri Agnew Aug. 9, 2018

Aug. 9, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email. The MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Thursday, 09 August 2018 at 13:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/nAtpBQ> https://community.icann.org/x/nAtpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-temp-spec-registration-data-09aug18-e n.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2z1tx9n4wy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=14dea907460b8fed 1934c6322f81020ab8465cb463a6521d925e42e825da8334> https://participate.icann.org/p2z1tx9n4wy/ ** 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/> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ> https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Welcome - EPDP on the Temporary Specification for Registration Data
by Kurt Pritz Aug. 9, 2018

Aug. 9, 2018

Dear All: I am honored to be named chair of this EPDP team. I know many of you well and look forward to working with all of you. I’ve attached some thoughts about the operation of our team. These suggestions are intended to increase our effectiveness and facilitate the building of consensus. I appreciate your comments on any or all of them, either during the meeting or offline. The attached outline tracks to the meeting agenda, which is being sent out simultaneously with this email. If you have questions about the agenda items, please check the document attached here for some degree of explanation. Our first meeting (1 Aug 14:00UTC) will concern mainly process issues but I have reserved some time at the end for substantive discussion as we should get started in some small way. I look forward to seeing you all on Wednesday. Sincerely, Kurt

7 9

Audio cast information for alternates and observers August 9th 2018, 13:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 9, 2018

Aug. 9, 2018

Dear all, Non-members can follow the third EPDP call taking place today at 13:00 UTC via the audio cast: Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/nAtpBQ Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/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