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

Notes and action items - EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #59 - Thursday, 21 May 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #59 on Thursday, 21 May. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin Action items 1. EPDP Team members who have not yet done so – please complete late homework by Monday, 25 May by 18:00 UTC: review and provide input on the discussion tables for Recommendation 17 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (logging), Recommendation 18 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (audits), and implementation guidance i[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> (multiple requests). 2. EPDP Team members to review and provide input on the discussion table for Recommendation 15<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e2kdKDoLH04OqNfZLJMd1qbDM07an2tZFs9rJOP…> (financial sustainability) and review the updated Recommendation 19<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-npFkABPc-u3To6uYe2v6MTFHlrEOUD5i6x8LrH…> (evolutionary mechanism) and include “cannot live with items” in the chart within the document by COB Tuesday, 26 May. 3. Support Staff to update Recommendation 14 (retention), Recommendation 10 (Acceptable Use Policy) and Recommendation 12 (query policy) following the review of Recommendation 13 so that the recommendations may be considered together to avoid duplication. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #59 Proposed Agenda Thursday 21 May 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) * We plan to discuss Rec. 19 with Financial Sustainability on 26 or 28 May, depending on how we progress through the other recommendations * Re: automation – comment from EPDP Team Member – some members were under the impression that with few automated use cases, the Central Gateway would take the decision and instruct the CP to disclose. Others were under the impression that the CGM confirms the request meets the request for automated disclosure and sends to the CGM. Important to have a common understanding of this. 4. Recommendation #14 Data Retention (15 min) 1. Review discussion items<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126430750/Recommendation%2…> gleaned from input provided on Data Retention Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k5w2BMWiPBzpj_HeghcaijX2F2SVd5JHjKgDKIG…> * Do we need to define abuse? Is this a one-time occurrence or multiple occurrences? * This has already been discussed extensively. * What does “this” mean? * Fine with specific text. Can we look at the audit recommendation. * Re: the question if CPs can audit the requestors? This is probably not practical. * No objections to bold language being added. * CPs auditing the requestor for retention of the data is unworkable in practice. It would be difficult to prove a negative here. Bolded language is acceptable. * If requestor who has received the data is not handling it according to GDPR, this requestor would be on the hook. Suggest adding suggested text. * What is the context for adding this in? That said, no objection. * The disclosing party would still be liable if they’re not in control of who they are disclosing the data to. Do not need permission from the SSAD to audit the data a controller discloses. If this is covered by the audit requirements, this does not need to be included. * Action item: Support Staff to verify what can be audited and if this is acceptable * Address this question by including data retention violation in a non-exhaustive list in Rec. 1 * Concerned that we are approving terms of use that permit CPs to audit the parties they disclose data to – this could be a big problem * Is ICANN Compliance OK with this? ICANN org liaisons need to speak with colleagues in Compliance on this. A written question would be helpful here. * ICANN would enforce compliance here * Review the recommendation in the entirety and see what it is about. If the requestor systematically violates the acceptable use policy, the question is – who could ban the requestor from using this. Is it ICANN org or Central gateway? * In terms of the role of ICANN compliance, it may just be on use of the SSAD itself. If violating is de-accreditation, then this is ICANN’s role as a data controller to limit use of the system it’s put in place. * It would be helpful to have a written question. Becoming increasingly uncomfortable of stretching ICANN’s mandate in an attempt to cobble this together. People have been clear about whether ICANN is staying within its mission – no one should assume that ICANN will do this. “ICANN will” is unlikely to come until the Board sees the full picture of the SSAD. * The question is relatively easy to answer. If the SSAD is within ICANN’s remit, then ensuring anyone using the SSAD is playing by the rules is also in ICANN’s remit. Highly likely that ICANN will engage a subtractor to work on its behalf. * This is about whether it’s in ICANN’s mission or not. * If the Team is thinking in the wrong direction, it would be helpful for the ICANN liaisons to steer the team in the right direction * This is a bit late in the process, as if the answer will be no, this would be a problem. * Is ICANN org willing to take on an additional task – now it’s framed much more broadly is that is this within ICANN’s mission to take on the additional task. Does the Board see issues with the policy recommendations? We do not want to end up with presenting this, passing it at the GNSO Council level only to find issues with the Board believing this is out of scope. * Working under assumption that ICANN will do many things. * Want to ensure that we test every assumption that ICANN will do something that is in its mission. If it is as simple as you can no longer have access to the system, that would be one thing – but is this also subject to re-consideration requests, et. al. * Had we sorted out the controllership arrangements, ICANN’s responsibility would be clear. An obligation under the GDPR is to not continue to accredit people who are violating the rules. * Action: Janis to pose relevant questions to ICANN org and share the message with the team. 1. Confirm next steps 5. Recommendation #10 Acceptable Use (15 min) 1. Review discussion items<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126430750/RECOMMENDATION%2…> gleaned from input provided on Acceptable Use Policy Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h2179UY3KNoA3eIC1sdVR8G-GN_brLAN3h89r9f…> * CP should be able to trigger enforcement if they find the AUP has been violated * This should be triggered by ICANN compliance is the right place to do this * There is some overlapping – there are different and distinct items that serve different and distinct purposes * The acceptable use and terms of use are referring to two different things: one is for how users will use the SSAD system and the other is how requestors will use data once it is disclosed to them. * Wondering if to drive the point home about what the Acceptable Use Policy vs. the Terms of Use – would it be helpful to call this Terms and Conditions of using the SSAD * The CGM should just do a check that the requestor has agreed to the terms * This seems to be all the CGM could do in this case – a requestor would not be accredited if it doesn’t agree to the AUP * Not clear on what the new text means. The addition is already covered by b and e of this recommendation. Do not object to the addition but do not think it is necessary. Suggest this NOT be included. Note that we’ve covered elsewhere and move on. * Suggestion – leave the addition out and stick to the original text of the recommendation 1. Confirm next steps 6. Recommendation #12 Query Policy (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on query policy discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IkLu_tfMCayjjeXZLpivgXL5G2dtCepv440YpVT…> * Comments about assumptions and takeaways – there are a number of items that are said to be addressed in implementation. Ask that where we expect things to be addressed in implementation – we state that in the recommendation. This would be helpful for the implementation phase. * Question 1 will be further described in implementation * Thought the whole idea of not addressing historic data was agreed – this should not be included. While the presumption is accurate, the EPDP Team does not need to report on this in its recommendations. * This text is confusing and contradicts the main principle * Agree to NOT include this text * Each request should be examined on its own merits * Consider on its own merits may predate that the CGM is now doing this – this is for the CP to do * Do not agree with the removal of this * If the gateway cannot review requests on its merits, it can’t perform any recommendations * Much easier if we’re looking at a flowchart of how the SSAD will work * If you have 1000 identical requests from the same requestor, you would not give 1000 similar answers in one click, you would have to go through each request individually. * Ultimately, if there is a centralized version of disclosure, this principle may come into play, so this should be referenced. * Action item: Support Staff to review “examine on the merits” and make sure these are consistent with each other * Here, the idea was in case of many similar requests, each request should be examined individually by a computer 1. Confirm next steps 7. Recommendation #13 Terms of Use (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on terms of use discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sBVjsUf3JNQclGMpMS4PXBaffarVF5galoWxpVj…> * SSAD users = requestors * The concept that we’re trying to address is there should be input from users and requestors before the contracts are published. This should be similar to how the RAA was negotiated – in other words, there is input from others before the negotiation begins. * In terms of SSAD privacy policy, what was suggested makes sense. * Concerned with dropping the word “requestor” – there may be accredited users who are habitual users and everyone else is not accredited. 1. Confirm next steps 8. Recommendation #17 Logging (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on logging discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YaHV2F49-9FpbmJdciCgkYeGCiwNNVTvfmqqnlP…> 2. Confirm next steps 9. Recommendation #18 Audits (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on audits discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ctH4bAqrWTWK_XqnmvaFG7CnPcJdODQ5XaEwMw…> 2. Confirm next steps 10. Implementation guidance I (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on implementation guidance i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C9Z4Rv-sdtYmGcUqOBG-3-XsvovXUAPQ0y6gbMY…> discussion table 2. Confirm next steps 11. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): 1. Tuesday 26 May at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: financial sustainability, high level review of public comments received on the addendum. 2. Confirm action items 1. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/54LsBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as panelist, observers can join as an attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Tuesday, 26 May 2020
by Terri Agnew May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 is scheduled on Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. Zoom room information: Main Zoom Webinar link: please join via this link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98917212893?pwd=dTRQaEMwK0tweStXTVhpVERsVjdhZz09 Password: 953887 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Before joining the call: Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/qoYEC Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yblorw58 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> If you are joining via audio only: iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,98917212893#,,#,953887# or +13462487799,,98917212893#,,#,953887# Dial in directly with your chosen number [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> and provide the following information: Webinar ID: 989 1721 2893 Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Discussion items for recommendation 12 and 13
by Caitlin Tubergen May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached the discussion items for Recommendation 12 (Query Policy) and Recommendation 13 (Terms of Use). Please note these documents are also posted on the EPDP Team wiki page<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750>. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Update on legal vs. natural differentiation study
by Eleeza Agopian May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

Dear EPDP team, Please see below an update on the legal vs. natural differentiation study from Karen Lentz. Eleeza and Dan ICANN org liaisons = Dear EPDP Team members, I am writing to provide you with an update on ICANN org’s work on the study regarding differentiating between legal and natural persons (Ph 1 Rec 17.2). Thank you to those of you who provided your input in the questionnaire we did in March and helped to share it. We received over 200 responses. We are finishing our analysis of this and other information and are working to make the output as useful as possible to the discussions. We are nearly complete with the report, but need a couple more weeks to fully synthesize and present all of the information. We understand the interest around this topic and are working to have this ready to share as soon as possible. We have noted the various inputs and discussions in the EPDP Team for options around Priority 2 items including differentiation between legal and natural persons. We are ready to support next steps as determined by team, and hope this update is useful to those considerations. Thank you Karen -- Karen Lentz Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

2 1

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 21 May 2020
by Julie Bisland May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 is scheduled on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. Zoom room information: Main Zoom Webinar link: please join via this link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98917212893?pwd=dTRQaEMwK0tweStXTVhpVERsVjdhZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_j_989172…> Password: 953887 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Before joining the call: Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/54LsBw Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ycefg3zf [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_ycefg3zf&d…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> If you are joining via audio only: iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,98917212893#,,#,953887# or +13462487799,,98917212893#,,#,953887# Dial in directly with your chosen number [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> and provide the following information: Webinar ID: 989 1721 2893 Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and action items - EPDP Meeting #58 - 19 May 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. As a reminder, the next call will be Thursday, 21 May at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. EPDP Team members who have not yet done so – please complete late homework by COB today, Tuesday, 19 May: review and provide input on the discussion table for Recommendation 14<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k5w2BMWiPBzpj_HeghcaijX2F2SVd5JHjKgDKIG…> (retention), Recommendation 12<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IkLu_tfMCayjjeXZLpivgXL5G2dtCepv440YpVT…> (query policy) and Recommendation 13<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sBVjsUf3JNQclGMpMS4PXBaffarVF5galoWxpVj…> (terms of use). 2. EPDP Team to review and provide input on the discussion tables for Recommendation 17<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YaHV2F49-9FpbmJdciCgkYeGCiwNNVTvfmqqnlP…> (logging), Recommendation 18<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ctH4bAqrWTWK_XqnmvaFG7CnPcJdODQ5XaEwMw…> (audits), and implementation guidance i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C9Z4Rv-sdtYmGcUqOBG-3-XsvovXUAPQ0y6gbMY…> (multiple requests) by COB today, Tuesday, 19 May. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #58 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 19 May 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) * We do not have sufficient activity in homework completion – this has resulted in a Catch-22 situation where we cannot proceed when homework is not done. * Could groups consider assigning tasks to individual members instead of reviewing by groups 4. Recommendation #7 Authorization Automated & Recommendation #16 Automation (15 min) 1. Overview of changes applied by staff support team in response to last week’s discussion and input provided (see updated recommendation) * We started reviewing this recommendation during the previous call * We have to go through some minor issues to clarify * Support Staff has applied edits based on the team’s last discussion, including trying to clarify areas of confusion or trying to find a compromise between divergent positions. * Support Staff removed the highlighting so the Team could clearly see the edits. * Edits and accompanying explanations are included in the table at the end of the recommendation text * There is also a link to the previous version at the end of the document. 1. Continue review of remaining ‘cannot live with’ items & minor issues for clarification (see discussion items list) * a) how do automated disclosures happen? * Understanding – data would be held by the contracted party, so what other alternatives exist within the bounds the team discussed? * Is the Central Gateway manager now making the decision and accepting the liability? * No, the majority of cases involve the CGM channeling the request to the CP. * For limited cases at the beginning and possibly more in the future, the CGM will confirm that criteria for automation are met (the criteria is established by the policy) * According to Rec. 7, the cases we are talking about are 4 cases noted in the implementation notes. Since the CGM will not hold any data, there is no other way to handle this except for the CP to disclose the data. * This could not be done via RDAP, not as it’s described here. By way of example, this would be like someone trying to open a webpage in a browser and someone else getting the response. RDAP, just like a browser, is a restful interface. The person who submits the request would get the response. * Have to make sure we have a viable way to go forward – the result cannot be sent in open email. There has to be a secure transmission mechanism. The only simple solution is to somehow have the originator make the request again, but then it has to pass through the SSAD. * This discussion would be better handled in the implementation phase – the return mechanism needs to be discussed further. Replace RDAP with secure mechanism. This would be covered by a JCA, and depending on the type, a DPIA. * Once we got to a place where something is automated, the central gateway manager is making the decision and should be responsible for the decision * We are recommending a hybrid model, which will hopefully become more centralized as time goes on. We have centralized the intake of requests, centralized format. For the requestor side, there will be a significant improvement * The CGM is not making a decision on automated requests – it is making a decision over whether the bar for automated disclosure has been met. * Even if the gateway is making the decision, they are doing what we have told them to do. * Support Staff to review the language to ensure it is crystal clear. * b) human intervention at the central gateway * This is something that was discussed periodically – since full automation is not advisable is most instances, then adding a level of human scrutiny that doesn’t have to take a lot of time can take a lot of time. We should provision for decisions to be made centrally. * What does “person associated with SSAD” mean? We don’t know the jx or the relevant credentials the person would have. As a general comment, if we aren’t able to say and agree the category is automated, it has to go to the CP to decide. This is not viable at this point. * Agree that human intervention at the central gateway should not be ruled out – should not preclude this scenario, since the preference is for the decision to be made centrally. * ICANN is also a controller, and ICANN will oversee and run the SSAD. This clarification is just to include this as an option – this may not necessarily be used, but it could be. Somehow automation and centralization became synonymous, but we should bring back the option that it may not be fully automated if it is centralized. * ICANN is a controller, but ICANN has agreed that it will oversee the gateway, but they may not operate the gateway. Uncomfortable keeping an option open when there are many variables. * For the hybrid model, there is centralization of the request, but the decision will be made by the CP. The problem we are running into to is the open-endedness of the evolution. We need to stop using the concept of evolution to relitigate the hybrid vs. the centralized model * c) OK with the language on the screen as it reads now * Language is still ambiguous – a CP should not be able to automate all requests. Some CPs will break the law and automate requests simply to reduce their workload and this will be noncompliant with the GDPR and other data protection laws * An example could be for .pharmacy and .bank, where all the registrations are legal people. * Suggest adding “if it is legally permissible” * Where are the joint-controller agreements? * Not all CPs are subject to GDPR, some CPs only deal with legal registrants – it does not seem appropriate to remove this flexibility * d) support the deletion of “meaningful human” * b) revisit if evolutionary mechanism could take care of centralization vs. automation * c) currently, no way to reconcile opposing views 1. Confirm next steps 5. Recommendations not considered by EPDP (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendations not considered by EPDP<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QGzM6bvdRPq77tLt2EmMBw7FE7kplwQROT2hY61…> * Cross-border transfers – should there be a mention in the final report that contracted parties would need to adhere to cross-border transfer requirements * Important for the requestor to note where the data will be processed, but this is for implementation * Should mention this in the report * In terms of Rec. 3 – there is no requirement for the requestor to identify its location, so perhaps adding it there would address this concern * Agreement to highlight this in the recommendation * Other issues that need to be highlighted – under which grounds the requestor makes the demands * Support Staff to update Rec. 3 to include trans-border transfer of data 1. Confirm next steps 6. Recommendation #4 Third Party Justification (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on Third Party Justification Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FLaBcU3Nl0vdRPO2-jmwLE2TcqdBNKLTiObOYdj…> * Purposes should be changed to justifications * Should third parties be changed to requestor in the title as well? * Do not agree with changing purposes to justifications * The point of deleting purposes here is to avoid confusion with the conflation of third-party purposes and ICANN purposes * GDPR talks about purposes, and part of what we are doing is providing a purpose statement to the registrant. Changing it to justification takes it out of the GDPR context. * We spent Phase 1 deliberating on purposes for collection of the data and agreed that we would discuss and document third-party purposes in Phase 2. * NCSG is withdrawing the objection, but not sure why justifications is still in – this is sloppy language * No objection to remove the justifications from the title * Question 3 – * There may be instances where data subjects may want their data disclosed not globally but in certain instances * Yes to consent, but not via the SSAD * This is a recommendation for third party purposes. The items listed in subsection iv do not make sense. Remind everyone that this is not an exhaustive list – dropping iv seems to be the simplest and easiest way to move forward. * The vast majority of RNH requests for data should go to CPs b/c they have deeper data and the average data request will not be for data held by the SSAD * Prefer to keep the first part in * iv is not a third party purposes – it’s a basis for processing the data “or on the basis of iv” 1. Confirm next steps 7. Recommendation #14 Data Retention (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on Data Retention Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k5w2BMWiPBzpj_HeghcaijX2F2SVd5JHjKgDKIG…> 2. Confirm next steps 8. Recommendation #10 Acceptable Use (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on Acceptable Use Policy Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h2179UY3KNoA3eIC1sdVR8G-GN_brLAN3h89r9f…> 2. Confirm next steps 9. Recommendation #12 Query Policy (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on query policy discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IkLu_tfMCayjjeXZLpivgXL5G2dtCepv440YpVT…> 2. Confirm next steps 10. Recommendation #13 Terms of Use (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on terms of use discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sBVjsUf3JNQclGMpMS4PXBaffarVF5galoWxpVj…> 2. Confirm next steps 11. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): 1. Thursday 21 May at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: Logging, audits and implementation guidance i (submission of multiple requests). 2. Confirm action items 1. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Proposed agenda - EPDP Meeting #59 - 21 May 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the proposed agenda for our next meeting. As a reminder, here are the action items due today: 1. EPDP Team members who have not yet done so – please complete late homework by COB today, Tuesday, 19 May: review and provide input on the discussion table for Recommendation 14<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k5w2BMWiPBzpj_HeghcaijX2F2SVd5JHjKgDKIG…> (retention), Recommendation 12<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IkLu_tfMCayjjeXZLpivgXL5G2dtCepv440YpVT…> (query policy) and Recommendation 13<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sBVjsUf3JNQclGMpMS4PXBaffarVF5galoWxpVj…> (terms of use). 2. EPDP Team to review and provide input on the discussion tables for Recommendation 17<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YaHV2F49-9FpbmJdciCgkYeGCiwNNVTvfmqqnlP…> (logging), Recommendation 18<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ctH4bAqrWTWK_XqnmvaFG7CnPcJdODQ5XaEwMw…> (audits), and implementation guidance i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C9Z4Rv-sdtYmGcUqOBG-3-XsvovXUAPQ0y6gbMY…> (multiple requests) by COB today, Tuesday, 19 May. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #59 Proposed Agenda Thursday 21 May 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) 4. Recommendation #14 Data Retention (15 min) 1. Review discussion items<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126430750/Recommendation%2…> gleaned from input provided on Data Retention Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k5w2BMWiPBzpj_HeghcaijX2F2SVd5JHjKgDKIG…> 2. Confirm next steps 5. Recommendation #10 Acceptable Use (15 min) 1. Review discussion items<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126430750/RECOMMENDATION%2…> gleaned from input provided on Acceptable Use Policy Discussion Table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h2179UY3KNoA3eIC1sdVR8G-GN_brLAN3h89r9f…> 2. Confirm next steps 6. Recommendation #12 Query Policy (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on query policy discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IkLu_tfMCayjjeXZLpivgXL5G2dtCepv440YpVT…> 2. Confirm next steps 7. Recommendation #13 Terms of Use (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on terms of use discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sBVjsUf3JNQclGMpMS4PXBaffarVF5galoWxpVj…> 2. Confirm next steps 8. Recommendation #17 Logging (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on logging discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YaHV2F49-9FpbmJdciCgkYeGCiwNNVTvfmqqnlP…> 2. Confirm next steps 9. Recommendation #18 Audits (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on audits discussion table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ctH4bAqrWTWK_XqnmvaFG7CnPcJdODQ5XaEwMw…> 2. Confirm next steps 10. Implementation guidance I (15 min) 1. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on implementation guidance i<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C9Z4Rv-sdtYmGcUqOBG-3-XsvovXUAPQ0y6gbMY…> discussion table 2. Confirm next steps 11. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): 1. Tuesday 26 May at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: financial sustainability, high level review of public comments received on the addendum. 2. Confirm action items 1. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/ToYEC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as panelist, observers can join as an attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 21 May 2020
by Terri Agnew May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 is scheduled on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. Zoom room information: Main Zoom Webinar link: please join via this link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98917212893?pwd=dTRQaEMwK0tweStXTVhpVERsVjdhZz09 Password: 953887 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Before joining the call: Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/54LsBw Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ycefg3zf The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> If you are joining via audio only: iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,98917212893#,,#,953887# or +13462487799,,98917212893#,,#,953887# Dial in directly with your chosen number [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> and provide the following information: Webinar ID: 989 1721 2893 Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0