Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next EPDP Team meeting will be Tuesday, 31 March at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items EPDP Support Team to incorporate the edits agreed to during today’s meeting and publish the addendum for public comment today. The public comment period of the addendum will close on 5 May 2020. EPDP Support Team to send the automation use case legal questions to the EPDP Team. Following review of the Public Comment Review Tool for Recommendation 19 and the Recommendation 19 Discussion Table, EPDP Team to provide feedback on the Mechanism Brainstorming Document via the input table at the bottom of the document by COB Monday, 30 March. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #49 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 26 March 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) Legal Committee update Please refer to the executive summary on the consent memo The Legal Committee agreed on language for questions on the automation use cases, and those will be sent to Bird & Bird today. Support Staff to share the automation use cases questions with the plenary team 4. Finalization of Addendum to Initial Report (15 minutes) Review any minor edits that have been flagged by EPDP Team members as not being minor Have all parties agreed that minor edits are OK to proceed? Feedback from EPDP Team Legal vs. Natural Question re: legal vs. natural – ALAC agrees with BC and believes legal vs. natural should not be deferred to the GNSO Council for consideration in the future – this should go back to the EPDP after this Addendum is published. There was no agreement on formation of a Small Group. The Team should flag this open issue to the Community in this addendum. A Small Group will not solve this – it needs to go to the GNSO Council. A Small Group would be a waste of time. Object to not allowing for dissenting opinions in the Initial Report If there was new input to provide on this topic, it may have been worthwhile to form a small group. The advice from B&B does not qualify as new input, as the group does not have a legal disagreement; it has a policy disagreement. Reminder of conversation from Tuesday – there was a conversation about the noted Purpose 2 divergence from NCSG. Some EPDP Team members objected to the divergence being captured in the addendum b/c other areas of divergence were not captured. In the interest of time, NCSG agreed to remove the noted divergence in the addendum, and groups could publish minority statements in the Final Report. What was decided on Tuesday was the EPDP Team would not provide language, but that is different than a group providing a separate statement Objectionable that dissenting opinions cannot be included as an attachment to the addendum Instead of saying the EPDP Team will consult with the GNSO Council – suggest saying, “As a result, the EPDP Team will consult with the GNSO Council on potential next steps.” Support this edit Recommend adding a sentence re: additional legal advice from Bird & Bird. Minor edits Remove the “also” from the highlighted sentence and change “MAY” to “may” “The full p/p data may include a pseudonymized email.” Confirm next steps If there is a group of volunteers wishing to contemplate the legal advice from B&B, the small group could submit a public comment, and the EPDP Team will review the comments. Any Group wishing to submit a minority statement can do so in the Final Report. Staff Support can provide technical support to a Small Team, i.e., setting up Zoom meetings, but will not be able to provide substantive support due to focus on public comment review EPDP Team agreed to Laureen’s proposed update on preliminary conclusion on legal vs. natural persons: “As a result, the EPDP Team will consult with the GNSO Council on potential next steps.” Agreement to add statement re: legal guidance + policy question Agreement to edit sentence to: The full p/p data may include a pseudonymized email. Agreement to remove RySG’s proposed edit on pp. 17-18 Support Staff to apply edits and publish the addendum for public comment 5. Review of Public Comments on Initial Report (30 minutes) Confirm if/when EPDP groups that have not submitted their comments yet are planning to do so NCSG: hope to finalize input by the end of next week, and following the internal process to adopt the input as formal NCSG input, the comment will likely be published in approximately 2 weeks RySG: hope to finalize input as soon as possible, but the submission date is currently unknown Other groups who have not submitted comments – please inform Support Staff when the comments will be submitted High level overview of input received by deadline (Staff Support) Since we opened up the public comment period, we have been focusing on Priority 2 questions. Now we are fully back to our critical path work, which is reviewing the public comments. Proposed approach for review of comments: This will be very similar to how comments were handled during Phase 1 Comments are deposited into a format that is not user-friendly way However, this method saves many staff hours in the preparation of comments for deliberation Staff uses excel to normalize the data in a quantitative and qualitative way There are pie charts for each recommendation – these are guesstimates for support levels – these are NOT consensus levels Normalizing the data: to develop the pie charts, there was a filtering exercise to take the duplicates out There are nine groups that have or will submit comments Three groups have yet to submit, so there are placeholders to mark that 26 organizations (companies or associations) submitted comments 1 individual 2 duplicate submissions – either duplicative comment from the same org or duplicative of another organization’s comments Once this Excel is finalized, the Team can review for accuracy.
From this excel sheet, we move to the Public Comment Review Tool – broken out by support, support with wording change, significant change required, deleted, or no opinion Where the Team will be heading – the key element where the team could quickly review through the comments, the Team can refer to the discussion table. The discussion tables are a different version on how to organize the top-most concerns as provided by the groups We will then have a template and space for each group to flag what comments warrant further discussion, with a focus on “new” and “cannot live with” items The PCRTs should all be posted by the end of the weekend The full schedule will be posted by next Tuesday We still have an aggressive schedule, and there are a lot of comments to review. EPDP Team Members will have to come prepared to discuss the most pressing comments.
Commence deliberations on items identified in the report as requiring further work/review, considering input received to date, such as: Mechanism for the evolution of SSAD SLAs Reporting requirements Staff support team to organize comments by preliminary recommendation, similar to approach in phase 1 (one document with all comments relating to that recommendation, see example and one discussion table, see example). Order of review determined by level of disagreement / change expected to be needed. Every week by Tuesday COB, groups to provide their views on the discussion table for the topics that are to be discussed during Thursday’s plenary. One meeting per week, with the understanding that groups will deliver on their homework by COB on Tuesday. Leadership team & staff support team will consider input received on Wednesday and identify which comments need further consideration and/or proposed changes to the recommendation to address input received. Note, based on input received by 31 March on if/how many additional comments are expected, the approach may need to be revised. Note, it will require the commitment of groups to review input received each week by the deadline – hopefully with only one plenary call a week and no small team meetings, groups will be able to organize accordingly. Feedback from EPDP Team Concerned about public comments coming later affecting the work – for the mechanism, by way of example, what it the group agrees on a change, and something new comes in via a new stakeholder group? How is the group expected to revisit everything? Suggest for colleagues whose groups have not submitted – bring up with the concerns within the discussions Late comments sound like a logistical nightmare – if the portion of the feedback applicable to that week’s discussion should be brought forward during the discussion Had doubts about new format b/c freeform response form is easier for the commenter to use, but appreciate that it makes review and creation of overview much easier, so warming up to the new format – appreciate the work that went into it. Team is working under extraordinary circumstances here – grateful for additional time but will try to submit comments as soon as possible In recognition of the unusual circumstances, there is a time extension and it’s reasonable for members to take an extension; however, do not want delayed submissions to backfire on constituencies who submitted their feedback by the deadline. Hope that groups allow the discussion to continue and do not foreclose opportunity to reopen the discussion if new comments arise. Confirm next steps Next Tuesday will be the last meeting of the Team, which should be considered as catch up with non F2F meeting in Cancun. Beginning the week of 6 April, the Team will have one meeting per week, which could extend up to three hours 6. Mechanism for the evolution of SSAD (45 minutes) Consider input received (Public Comment Review Tool & Discussion Table) Consider Staff Support Brainstorming Proposal The brainstorming proposal provides high-level summaries of the comments to date received on the mechanism The Staff Support Team reviewed some of the options suggested in the public comment forum and provided additional background on four suggested options: the GNSO Guidance Process, a Cross-Community Standing Committee (like the CSC), a GNSO Standing Committee (like the SCBO), and contractual negotiations The document is a draft and does not indicate review of approval from ICANN org or the ICANN Board – any suggested mechanism will be subject to additional scrutiny Feedback from EPDP Team We still have not addressed the controller issue, and until we know who is responsible for the decision-making. We need guidance from ICANN org on this Hesitant on having this conversation without RySG input. Whatever this mechanism does cannot be construed as policy-making. The mechanism may not be needed if the model is fully centralized Rec. 19 is a particularly difficult recommendation for the registries – have to protect CPs against changing or creating policy outside of the established mechanisms CPs may have liability with decisions made by the SSAD and they need a veto that they do not feel comfortable; however, as we go forward, there may be a JC relationship and the responsibilities are clear. There may be insurance to protect the CPs – build for the current world, but this may change. The new gTLD model is something that could be considered here Question of insurance – coming up with a liability scheme and how to indemnify each other is not only relevant to the decision-making part; it is also important with respect to aspects of collection Confirm next steps Staff will include this document in a Google doc format EPDP Team Members to provide comments by COB Monday, 30 March 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): Tuesday 31 March at 14.00 UTC. Topics to be addressed: Continued discussion of mechanism for the evolution of SSAD, reporting requirements. Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any