Dear All,

Please find the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Meeting #45 below.

Best regards,

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

EPDP Meeting #45

11 February 2019

High-level Notes/Actions

1. Support Staff to retain the CPH originally-proposed language for Recommendation 28 (the implementation bridge) into the Final Report. Any groups who wish to propose edits are asked to do so over the list during the quiet period, i.e., as soon as today and no later than Friday, 15 February.
2. Support Staff to revert Recommendation 18 (reasonable requests for lawful disclosure) back to its previously-agreed form, i.e., delete proposal from Thomas, remove Ashley’s edits for the reasons described during the discussion. Any groups who wish to propose edits are asked to do so over the list during the quiet period, i.e., as soon as today and no later than Friday, 15 February.
3. Support Staff to circulate updated text for Recommendation 15 (data retention) based on today’s discussion.
4. EPDP Team to review the update Data Elements Workbook (Annex D) and flag any issues during the quiet period, i.e., no later than Friday, 15 February.
5. During the quiet period, groups should flag any inconsistencies or errors in the Final Report. Please refrain from opening previously-closed issues.

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 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 (5 minutes)

   a.   Review of outstanding action items

   b.   Other updates, if applicable

• A version of the Final Report was sent to the Team on Friday. If any edits are needed due to today's meeting, the edits will be applied. The updated version will be sent to the Council for instructive purposes. EPDP Leadership will be presenting the Final Report during Thursday's Council meeting.
• Kurt will distribute the third consensus bundle following today's call.

3. Implementation Bridge – Recommendation #28 (30 minutes)

a.  Review proposed language for inclusion in the Final Report:

• The date of February 29, 2020 has been added.
• Also, the language allows implementation to begin as soon as possible.

Team Feedback:

• Why are there no compliance penalties? Why is the term informally inserted before convened? This should be deleted.
• Interpretation: if the CP is not following the new policy, it must be following the Temp Spec. The flexibility of the language allows for an informal group to convene before Board consideration.
• Until 29 Feb, CP may operate under the new policy or under the Temp Spec. As long as the contracted party is operating under the one of those regimes, the contracted party will not be subject to compliance penalties.
• In the second paragraph, "will not be" should be changed to "may not be".
• The language is not meant to show preference to either regime.
• Perhaps the word expired should be inserted before Temp Spec. What does it mean to informally convene the IRT?
• The word "informally" was inserted to allow for earlier implementation.
• Rather than "shall be" it should be "shall be no later than". We should not refer to an expired policy in a policy recommendation. We should say "should not be subject to compliance penalties".
• The policy recommendations need to be translated into policy language, and that takes time, which is why there is a period for implementation.
• The language was the result of compromise, and any changes or additions will need to taken back to the list.
• The preference should be for the contracted parties to follow the policy, not the Temp Spec. The burden of why a contracted party cannot follow the new policy should be on them to provide.
• The standard practice is for contracted parties to apply status quo until the policy effective date, following the implementation of the policy. This language allows for contracted parties to adopt the new policy recommendations sooner. To require justification on the contracted parties, that would trigger a new procedure and accompanying burden and would likely not be accepted by the contracted parties.
• The goal is to move more quickly through defined processes for the benefit of contracted parties and the community.

b. Discuss proposed language for inclusion in the Final Report

c. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement

4. Recommendation #18 (old #12) - Reasonable Access (30 minutes)

a. Consider how to address applicability of the criteria in the body of the report – Thomas to suggest language?

• The idea of the updated language (in bold) is to add color to the previous sentence re: LEA disclosure. It notes the team did not have enough time to review language for LEA requests. The language notes the above recommendation does not apply to LEA requests. The language does not exclude LEA requests but does not limit LEA requirements either. The language also clarifies where we are in the process, i.e., that more work needs to be done.
• Is the updated language compatible with concerns previously raised on the list?
• Yes, the updated language addresses the concerns addressed. LEAs should not be putting their eggs in the Rec. 18 basket.
• The language was not intended to put law enforcement in a worse position, so the updated text goes a long way in clarifying that.
• Why are we inserting this language here when we will grapple with these issues in Phase 2. The language could be misinterpreted. The insertion of this language is, therefore, unnecessary.
• When we talk about different criteria and processes, are we discussing within the WHOIS policy or outside of it?
• This language should be deleted.
• Change to reasonable requests for lawful disclosure, and the "reasonable request" language is described more below.
• Action: revert the wording back to "reasonable requests for lawful disclosure" - delete the quote at the end.
• Revert the language back the way it was and groups can note their disagreement (if any) during the quiet period.

b.  Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement

5. Recommendation #15 (old #11) – Data Retention (30 minutes)

a. Review revised language circulated to the mailing list

• The language to this recommendation was agreed with the following exceptions: paragraph 1 was edited per Marc A's proposed rewording. Also, Marc A. noted the language in para 3 was slightly confusing, so leadership and the support team attempted to clarify the language.
• The EPDP team should not invite community members.
• Paragraph 1 is clearer now that additional information will be gathered to inform Phase 2.
• Re: para 2 - it's unclear what contractual language is maintained and what is not.
• Re: para 3 - the new language recognizes that there is an existing waiver process and that it should be looked at. The language is trending in the right direction, but registrars should weigh in on para. 2.
• Thought the group decided on a general retention period of one year - not just for the TDRP.
• In essence, para. 2 is fine, but the point about the period may need to be longer than one year to get over the hiatus in the TDRP, for example. Possibly an 18-month period could resolve the issue Alan G. has raised.
• The recommendation in para. 3 that the waiver procedure applies to period less than ICANN requirements and not that is more.
• Consider adding a footnote about the TDRP.
• In the first bullet point: it should say different retention periods.
• For second paragraph - 1 year period beyond the registration based on the TDRP, and another six months to implement the deletion. The reference to "shorter periods" needs more clarification.
• The Team could consider adding a footnote about the details being worked out in Phase 2.
• Action: change period to 18 months (insert Thomas' language)
• 2 changes: 1. 18 months. 2. in para 1, change different retention purposes to different retention periods. 3. add footnote about phase 2
• Action: Support Staff to circulate revised language following this call.

b. Discuss revised language

c. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement

6. Data Elements Workbooks (30 minutes)

a. Status Update

• Thank you to Berry for all of the work involved in this.
• When we are looking at the data elements, we are looking at it per purpose. Significant work to document the purposes across data elements and it make it more user-friendly. The Team must now review the tables for understanding and accuracy.

b. Further updates expected in relation to Final Report

c. Questions / Comments?

7.   Next Steps (10 minutes)

• Silent review should be used for pointing out errors or inconsistencies
• Draft report will be forwarded to the GNSO Council and will be discussed during the Council
• Based on flagged issues, the Team may hold meeting next week (placeholder invites have already been sent out).
• Report will be sent on 20 Feb to Council.
• Question: what words will be used when full consensus is not designated?
• Deadline for feedback on the Final Report is EOD Friday, 15 February.

8. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, 19 February 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes)

a. Confirm action items

b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any