For your information, please see below. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Begin forwarded message: From: "Drazek, Keith via council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 01 May 2019 at 08:11:08 GMT-6 To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Letter from Mr. Marby 5.1.2019 Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Hi all, Last week, Janis Karklins and I met with ICANN staff in Los Angeles to help streamline his onboarding as new EPDP Phase 2 Chair. The meetings were designed to help bring Janis up to speed on the role of the GNSO as PDP manager, PDP operating procedures, the history of the EPDP Phase 1, upcoming Phase 1 implementation work, and review of the “mind map” to prepare for kicking off Phase 2. Most of our time was spent with ICANN Policy staff supporting the EPDP (Marika, Caitlin and Berry) but we did have the opportunity to chat with Goran and some of his team. Pam and Rafik were both able to dial in for a portion of the meetings as well. The key takeaways from our interaction with Goran were (1) it is still unclear that a UAM with ICANN in a centralized role will be a viable solution, (2) that he is still working with the European Commission and DPAs to explore whether a UAM might be viable (both from a legal and risk assumption perspective), and (3) that he wants to engage with the EPDP Team to help inform that ongoing work. Please note the attached letter from Goran confirming that, which I see as a positive development on several fronts. Increased collaboration between ICANN Org and the EPDP Team is a good thing here, as Goran works to secure some indication from the EDPB that a UAM is workable, or not. Getting that answer, or some indication, will help the EPDP Team in structuring its work and ensuring we’re not wasting valuable time chasing a potentially non-compliant solution. Frankly, if the answer comes back that a UAM with ICANN taking on a centralized role is *not* viable in the eyes of the EDPB, we’re better off knowing that early in the Phase 2 work. Also, as there are references to the TSG framework in his letter, it’s important to note that Goran acknowledges that any EDPB feedback on a UAM and TSG framework will “inform the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations,” so this is an opportunity for the EPDP Team to help ensure the *right* policy questions are being posed. Please see the attached letter and let me know if you have any questions. I’m also happy to give a verbal update of the meetings during our 16 May Council call. We will forward this to the EPDP Team list. Best, Keith From: Goran Marby <goran.marby@icann.org<mailto:goran.marby@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 3:47 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com> Cc: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>; Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira@icann.org<mailto:cassia.oliveira@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter from Mr. Marby 5.1.2019 Cassia Oliveira on behalf of Goran Marby Dear Janis and Keith, Attached please find letter from Mr. Marby. Thank you. Regards, Göran Marby President & CEO ICANN +1(310) 578 8690 Cássia Oliveira Sr. Manager, Office of the President & CEO cassia.oliveira@icann.org<mailto:cassia.oliveira@icann.org> +1(310) 578 8656