Dear EPDP Team, Please find notes and action items from today’s EPDP call below. As a reminder, the next EPDP Team call will be Thursday, 6 June at 14:00 UTC. The first call for Priority 2 worksheets will be Monday, 3 June at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin EPDP Meeting #4 30 May 2019 Action Items EPDP Team to provide input on clarifying questions, concerns, and/or background information for the GNSO Council’s consultation with the Board in relation to non-adoption of parts of EPDP phase 1 recommendations by COB Tuesday, 4 June. EPDP Support Staff to update the SO/AC/SG/C template with RySG’s edits and send to the SO/AC/SG/Cs at the latest by tomorrow, 31 May, with a deadline of 21 June for response. Janis to provide the proposal for dealing with legal questions, including the members of the legal advisory group, by tomorrow, Friday, 31 May. EPDP Team to provide any additional comments on the working definitions draft by COB Tuesday, 4 June. If there are objections to Steve Crocker’s presentation during the Team’s next meeting, please express them by tomorrow, Friday, 31 May. EPDP Team Members who are unable to attend the scheduled calls on Priority 2 worksheets may provide feedback via google docs (see https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/b.+Worksheets). Notes These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ. 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from Zoom Remember to mute your microphones upon entry to Zoom, which is typically the first icon on the left on the bottom toolbar. Please 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. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) Duration of calls – proposal to schedule calls for 120 minutes but aim to keep to 90 minutes. No objection - calls will now be scheduled for 120 minutes with the goal of keeping meetings at 90 minutes. 4. Expected next steps in relation to Board action on Phase 1 recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.b [icann.org] (Keith Drazek) (20 minutes) Update on Council discussions and expected next steps The Council held an extraordinary meeting earlier this week, during which the Board’s resolution on Phase 1 EPDP recommendations was discussed. The Board approved 27 of the 29 recommendations, and portions of the other two recommendations. This triggered an ICANN bylaws mandated consultation period. This is uncharted territory. The Council, as the PDP manager, is looking at questions of process and procedure, but also understands the substance of the recommendations came from the EPDP Team. If any questions are related to the substance of the recommendations, the Council will turn to the EPDP Team for guidance. Are there any questions the EPDP team would like to raise for the Council to bring to the Board? The Council wants to ensure the EPDP Team and Council are synched up before interaction with the Board. Discussion The Council would like preliminary questions by next Friday. Question: regarding the questions to the Board specifically about Purpose 2, it requires further refinement - who would refine the purpose? Question: is the Council looking for the EPDP Team to provide updated recommendations in light of the Board’s resolution? The Council is looking to find out whether the EPDP Team identifies any substantive issues, concerns, or questions regarding the portions of the recommendations that were not accepted. At this time, the Council is not looking for specific guidance on how the non-acceptance will be handled, i.e., a rewrite of Purpose 2. Instead, will any of the non-acceptance affect the Team’s work in Phase 2? Question: With respect to recommendation 12, the Board is concerned that executing a process that involves deleting data is revocable. The recommendation, though, was trying to reconcile the mistreatment or inconsistent application of the organization field. Is there a chance, in this consultation process, for the Board to revisit its rationale? The consultation is unprecedented, so it is unclear at this time how it will play out. If there are clarifying questions the EPDP Team would like to ask, the Council can bring these to the Board during the consultation process. It’s unclear if the Board will change its resolution based on the consultation. On recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the Board acknowledged that Purpose 2 was placeholder language and that there was subsequent direction from the European Commission. Question: What happens if, following the consultation process, the EPDP Team comes up with the same conclusion or a different conclusion and the ICANN Board does not adopt it? The Board’s resolution is currently with the Council. At some point, the Council will formally refer items back to the EPDP Team. If the EPDP Team confirms the recommendation or rewrites the recommendation, the Council could re-forward the former or amended recommendation to the Board for further consideration. Question: The EPDP Team should definitely take the time to send clarifying questions and arming the GNSO Council with background information to inform the consultation with the ICANN Board. Confirm next steps for EPDP Team, if any The Council is approaching this consultation in a deliberate and cautious manner EPDP Team to provide input on clarifying questions, concerns, background information by COB Tuesday, 4 June. 5. SG/C/SO/AC Input Template – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/18y45QVBgf8K_qaHEPL_Ux7Fs1MuFZ8lDsVa7B5O80xs/edit[docs.google.com] - (Chair) (10 minutes) Review input received It is a requirement in the PDP process for the Team to reach out to SG/C/SO/AC for early input. Last week, the Leadership Team provided a draft call for input as well as a timeline. The RySG provided one comment to only include the three main charter questions in order to focus the input. The groups are, of course, welcome to comment on the annex or anything else they choose, but it may be preferable to only include the charter questions for focused input. The IPC agrees with the RySG that sticking with the charter questions in the best path forward. The questions in yellow are included in the draft proposed by leadership. The proposal is to replace the yellow questions that are on the right hand side of the screen. If the Team is asking about disclosure and standardized access, we need to ask for specific rationale. Confirm next steps and deadline for SG/C/SO/AC input The Team will move forward with the RySG-edited draft (currently on the screen) and send to the SO/AC/SG/Cs tomorrow with a deadline of 21 June so that the EPDP Team can review the input in Marrakech. 6. Legal memos clarifying questions (15 minutes) (Caitlin) Review questions submitted Proposed approach for prioritizing and confirming questions for submission to Bird & Bird Do the questions relate to Phase 2 issues identified in the Mind Map, i.e., charter questions, questions in the Annex: Important Issues for Further Community Action, or issues deferred from Phase 1? If the question is NOT related to the EPDP Team’s Phase 2 work, it will not be reviewed further. If the question DOES relate to Phase 2 work, Support Staff will align the question with the relevant Phase 2 issue and determine if the Phase 2 issue is a Priority 1 or a Priority 2 item. Priority 1 questions, or questions related to a system for standardized access/disclosure, will be reviewed first. Priority 2 items will be moved to the corresponding worksheets for further discussion following EPDP Team agreement on the scope and expected deliverable of the topic. Following agreement on scope and deliverable(s), the legal advisory group (described in the final bullet point) will consider these questions as a priority item so that once confirmed that these are essential to address the issue, they can be sent to legal counsel as a matter of urgency. Once the initial parameters are agreed to, the legal advisory group can better determine necessary legal guidance (if any). If the legal advisory team agrees with the recommendation, the advisory team will begin working on the Priority 1 questions identified. The legal advisory group is a small, chair-appointed group of legal professionals who are members of the EPDP Team. The legal advisory group is not representative, but rather, expertise based. It will meet on an as needed basis to review potential legal question to ensure: (1) the questions are truly legal in nature, as opposed to a policy or policy implementation question; (2) the questions are phrased in a neutral manner, avoiding both presumed outcomes as well as constituency positioning; (3) the questions are both apposite and timely to the EPDP Team’s work; and (4) the limited budget for external legal counsel is being used responsibly. Meetings of the legal advisory group will be open to all EPDP Team members; however, only the appointed members will be invited to speak. · Feedback: o This should not be restricted to legal professionals. o Some of the questions put forward are policy questions, and it will be important for the legal advisory group to weed out these questions. o This makes sense for a path forward - however, it would be helpful to see this in writing. Confirm next steps Janis to provide the proposal for dealing with legal questions, including the members of the legal advisory group by tomorrow, 31 May. 7. Working definitions for the purpose of the EPDP (15 min) (Chair): Review updated proposed working definitions The Leadership Team distributed an initial draft last week. Following the input period, the Leadership Team endeavored to reconcile the divergent views on the working definitions. Reminder: these definitions are not legal definitions - it is a cheat sheet and reminder that will assist in keeping the team on the same page. EPDP Team Feedback: Point of order: the definitions document was sent at 3:02AM Pacific Time and the Team was asked to agree to it in four hours. It’s important to give members adequate time to review documents so that work cannot be challenged later. The second bullet point (the request of third parties) and the following sentence should be removed. Agree that the second bullet point should be removed - is there a reason this definition was included? This document presents a reasonable path forward between the divergent views, but this is not the medium in which we should look for closure. Support the definitions here The Team is now four weeks into its work and has yet to discuss substance. While foundational work is necessary, it is important for discussions and debates to begin. Can live with the definitions, as these are working definitions. Question for consideration: why are team members attached to the definition of access? There is a huge difference between access and disclosure. This document is an attempt to bridge the gap of different positions. From the Chair’s side, access has different meanings. More time may be needed for reflection; the document is important to keep everyone on the same page, but it is not critical to the Team’s activities. Proposal to refer to the definitions as the Chair’s definitions for those who cannot live with the definitions. Confirm working definitions EPDP Team Members to comment on the working definitions by COB Tuesday, 4 June. 8. SSAD Priority 1 worksheet (30 minutes) (Marika) Outline concept approach – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoolznpxb0JxddFZA5n9ueRkB4tjDOQQCoMeQWpb... [docs.google.com] This draft was shared with the Team earlier this week. There is a lot of information to digest in this worksheet; as such, the Leadership Team asked the Team to focus on the objective of the topic. To date, only the RrSG has provided feedback. Included in this worksheet are the Charter questions, annex questions, items from the Phase 1 Final report, the TSG policy questions (in the event the Team wants to review those). General reading information is included so that all team members can review background information. Work done in other areas can serve as a basis for the Team’s discussion. If there is anything missing, please feel free to add. Proposed briefings are also included. Dependencies are included - these dependencies come from the Team’s brainstorming effort. Non-exhaustive list of topics - so far, no topics have been added. The leadership team thought about a logical flow of tackling the topics. This order is open to the Team’s input, so please provide input if you think a different order would be preferable. Legal questions and definitions may evolve over the course of the Team’s work. For each substantive topic, the Leadership Team tried to identify the objective of looking at this topic. It’s important that the Team agrees with the objective of the topic. Staff also noted materials to review regarding that topic. Since a lot of work has already been done, the idea would be to use previous work for the basis of starting the work. Related mind map questions are also included - does the Team agree that all related Charter questions or Phase 1 issues are flagged correctly? Staff has tried to identify what the specific tasks are to address the topic, as well as a target date for completion. Following EPDP Team agreement, Support Staff will move the tasks to a more detailed work plan. Eventually, the topics will be divided into separate worksheets, but for now, everything is together for the ease and comprehensiveness of the review. Input from EPDP Team The IPC has drafted a set of input based on the questions. Question: on p. 7, what effort is being referred to - agreeing to the template, or is it something more than that? Answer: the effort is the completion of the worksheet. Once the worksheet is agreed to, it will be moved into the work plan. The RySG met and discussed this worksheet. There are some preliminary confusions - first, what is the goal of the worksheet - will it be appended to the Initial Report? Regarding topics and timelines, it seems to put the cart before the horse as discussion may lead to more topics. With respect to the order of topics we are discussing, getting clear and specific Phase 2 legal questions out will be a first priority. The Team cannot blindly suggest timelines - the emphasis should be clear legal tenets, not timelines. The document is not carved in stone and can be updated as we go along; however, please submit comments in writing. This document is an immensely helpful guide and will be edited along the way. The GAC is looking at the document now. Some of the TSG policy questions may be outside the scope of the EPDP’s work. When we talk about the SSAD, we assume this is for third parties? What does this mean for contracted parties or for ICANN? Agree that ICANN should be added to the definition of SSAD ICANN needs to come up with its position of controller, joint controller and then draft a policy accordingly. Confirm next steps for finalization of priority 1 worksheet EPDP Team to provide additional input. EPDP Support Staff will incorporate the comments. Preliminarily, there are no objections to the sequence. For the specific or concrete discussion, parts of the worksheet will be taken out for ease of reference and work and provided before the relevant meeting. 9. Any other business (Chair) Call schedule priority 2 worksheets review Support Staff has provided Priority 2 worksheets Members of the Team who wish to provide input on the worksheets can do so during the specific calls Following the review by the smaller team, the work sheets will be presented to the full team. Invite those who are interested to join the first call on Monday. Monday, 03 June - 14:00-15:30 UTC Display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy / proxy providers Legal vs natural persons Wednesday, 12 June - 20:00 – 21.30 UTC City field redaction Data Retention Monday 17 June – 13:00 – 14:30 UTC Potential OCTO Purpose Feasibility of unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address TBC (post ICANN65) Accuracy and WHOIS ARS Expert briefing by Steve Crocker No objection by the EPDP Team for this briefing. Proposal to invite Steve Crocker to present for 45 minutes during the next call. Substance of the presentation will assist the Team in thinking about its work. Request: in the interest of transparency, it will be important for the EPDP Team to know if the work is funded in whole or in part by a third party, and if so, the identity of the third party. It would be helpful to receive a short description on Crocker’s briefing in advance of the meeting. There are a lot of ideas in the community with how to make registration data more compliant with privacy laws - what is the process for others to come before the group with their ideas? If the Team believes there are other expert presentations that would be beneficial, the Leadership Team would look into it. If there are objections to having Steve Crocker’s presentation during the Team’s next meeting, please express them by tomorrow, Friday, 31 May. If objections are expressed, we will not have the briefing during the next meeting. F2F Meeting in September It would be helpful to kick this process off quickly so that those who require visas to enter the US have sufficient time to procure the visas. F2F - 9 - 11 September seems acceptable to the team. 10. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 6 June at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any