On May 31, 2019, at 00:30, jk <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>> May I also propose an experiment to you. Pls step in my shoes for a moment and try to reconcile different opinion of the team and come up with a compromise formulation. Thing that I agree is that we don’t need to waste too much time on working definition. If after further reflections members will not be able to come to a consensual compromise, I will park the document in the folder – Chair’s proposals. Janis I understand your situation and appreciate your attempt to mediate a compromise working definition. I think we can agree at this point that we are not going to find that on the definition of access. Based on Amr’s more extensive analysis I believe we just drop that one from the working definition. It doesn’t mean we drop the whole document. We just don’t agree on “access.” From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:33 PM To: Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Cc: gnso-epdp-lead@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-lead@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed working definitions of the frequently used terms during the EPDP Phase 2 Hi, Janis, I am still having trouble with this: "The request of third parties for access to full set or subset of non-public gTLD domain name registration data through disclosure policy that is fully compliant with GDPR and developed as a result of the EPDP." This definition seems to be straining to get the word "access" into the definition even though the substance of the definition renders the word meaningless. Please do the following experiment. Delete the words "access to full set or subset of" from this definition. This is what you get: "The request of third parties for non-public gTLD domain name registration data through disclosure policy that is fully compliant with GDPR and developed as a result of the EPDP." In other words, the definition works fine without the word access. So let's be frank and realistic. We have a solid legal basis for talking about access for data subjects and none for access for third parties. Ergo, there is no reason to include third party requests in the definition of "access" unless we are trying to leverage the definition to lead to a particular policy outcome. I respectfully suggest, again, that we stop wasting time trying to impose idiosyncratic and politically motivated definitions on the process, and move straight on to having the policy debate about what kind of disclosure processes and rights third parties are going to get. That, ultimately, is all that matters. The definitional stuff is just spinning our wheels with political spin and positioning. --MM ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 5:59 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Cc: gnso-epdp-lead@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-lead@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed working definitions of the frequently used terms during the EPDP Phase 2 Dear team members, Pls see attached the Proposed working definitions of the frequently used terms during the EPDP Phase 2. It takes to account comments made by members and attempts to reconcile divergence of views on interpretation of some terms. Pls consider this proposal with clear understanding that these are not legal definitions, but only explanatory texts for the use of EPDP Phase 2 only. I hope you will find proposal as one you can live with. My wish is to endorse this understanding and move further with discussions on the outline of SSAD. Thank you JK