Hello EPDP colleagues, sending the following through again as there were some hiccups with my previous attempt. Apologies again for the lateness in getting you all the GAC Small Group input on this. Best, Ashley Heineman (GAC) 202 482 0298 From: Heineman, Ashley Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 4:09 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: GAC Small Group Views on Phase 2 Approach Dear EPDP colleagues, I realize this is very late in coming, but the GAC Small Group wanted to have on the record our views as they pertain to the Phase 2 approach. Please see the following and let us know if you'd like us to explain or discuss anything further. Thanks!! GAC Views on Draft Approach (v2) The GAC Small Group thanks the EPDP Chair and ICANN support staff for developing the Draft Approach for Phase 2 EPDP efforts. In general, we appreciate the logic and coherence of the Draft. That being said, the GAC Small Group offers the following reactions: * The GAC supports the main and primary objective of Phase 2 as being that of developing and agreeing on the policy recommendations for sharing non-public registration data with requesting parties. * The GAC is concerned that the approach identifies "legal certainty" as the basis for determining the modalities of a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure. Realistically speaking, there is no such thing as legal "certainty." Legal "assurances" are more appropriate. * The GAC supports using online and on-site meetings with regular frequency with an aim to conclude its deliberations at ICANN 67. * The GAC supports the team meeting weekly until ICANN 65. However, the GAC believes that meetings twice a week should commence starting in July as previously proposed. Frequency of meetings should then be evaluated on a regular basis to determine if meetings should increase or decrease in frequency moving forward. * The GAC supports the use of worksheets and hopes they can effectively be used as a tool to limit the scope of our efforts to only that which is necessary and required. * The GAC supports working on elements of a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure of Non-Public Registration Data as outlined on slide 4, however, there should be the flexibility to modify the elements should it be determined through the course of our work that additional elements are needed to complete our work (and also if some identified elements are not needed). The GAC further agrees that concentration should be made on "essential building blocks of the System," but we note that it has yet to be determined what is "essential." The GAC recommends making this determination (at least a preliminary determination) as a priority in and of itself. * The GAC agrees that a reporting format needs to be determined in a reasonable time frame, but this shouldn't dominate EPDP discussions or otherwise take a considerable amount of time away from other substantive discussions. * The GAC supports relying on the GNSO, ICANN Board, and Staff liaisons to channel information to respective bodies as appropriate. The GAC also supports, with great interest and earnest, the EPDP Team engaging with ICANN Org as policy questions are developed and shared with DPAs with the objective of determining or otherwise getting feedback/guidance as it pertains to compliance of any proposed System for Standardized Access/Disclosure. The GAC finds this exercise as critical to moving our discussions forward and not getting stalled in discussions on whether or not we think our approach is in compliance. * Lastly, the GAC finds the proposed timeline for Phase 2 as largely consistent with GAC advice. However, attempts should be made, where possible, to compress this timeline so that a Final Report can be completed in early 2020.