Dear EPDP Team, Please find the below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Thank you again to everyone for getting us to this point! Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8AdV...> 1. Keith to revisit the Chair’s statement in light of concerns from Alan G. and Marc A. and circulate revisions to the EPDP Team (if applicable) as soon as possible. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday 2 September 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) * If any groups are planning to submit minority statements today, please flag this today to assist in Support Staff’s preparation of the Final Report. 3. Consider input received on the Chair’s statement and consensus designations (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2021-September/004126.html) a. Consider EPDP Team input * One word could be edited. “That is the best that could be achieved” should be changed to “that is the maximum that could be achieved” as best seems like a value judgment that some may disagree with. * “associated with legal person registrations” – that is not accurate. The concern is broader – proposed removing those five words – as there is also a concern if inadvertently publishing the personal data of a natural person. * We have been talking about the rights of registrants and the rights of internet users – we have been talking about legal persons data; we were not talking about the fear of personal data in general. * Perhaps because legal person data is already mentioned in that sentence, the second reference is unnecessary. * With respect to consensus designations, the ALAC will support Rec.1 but reluctantly. This is because ALAC strongly supports establishing the basis for the technical field. The reason for wanting to object – is to separate out the various aspects of the field, particularly the requirement or lack thereof, to use the field if the registrar chooses to differentiate. There are those who will have this field, but they are not required to use it. The may instead of must for those who are differentiating is not acceptable to ALAC – this should be mandatory to those who choose to differentiate – not necessarily published, but consistent. * These concerns will be noted in ALAC’s minority statement, but the group made the wrong decision to specifically identify what is supported because the process was reasonably followed and what is supported because it was liked. * BC also shares these concerns and will note these in a minority statement. * Perhaps a minor edit could include the inability to split support on recommendation 1 has been raised – the lack of ability to state positions in a more granular way was problematic. * It is not for this group to speculate how someone else who is liable as the controller purports how to deal with data that they control. * Concern with ALAC’s suggestion – this seems to be a slippery slope. The Team is now well aware of the RySG’s discomfort with the word should over may. Would it have been necessary to have more granularity there? RySG voiced its concerns but agreed to not object to the overall recommendation but to raise the concern in the minority statement. The same reasoning should apply for recommendation 1. b. Confirm next steps * Keith to consider adding language to the Chair’s statement to address the issue in a way that considers Alan and Marc’s suggestions 4. Confirm minor edits – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Il7T4x1nOXA5i8ru58zCwB3KlTg9aZ5h/edit) a. Consider EPDP Team input * Agree that something needs to indicate where the field goes, the footnote tries to do this. What if the footnote is changed to “where this field or fields can be used within EPP and the RDDS.” * This is acceptable. * Is there a reason this text can’t just be included in the recommendation? * Add “in the RDDS” at the end of the recommendation. * Last-minute editing is making me uncomfortable. The proposed edit to add RDDS to the last sentence seems to make the footnote redundant. * If anyone objects to changes proposed, the previous text will remain. * This addition is about standards not about mandating use. * Suggest keeping the footnote and adding RDDS in the footnote. * Instead of “applied the advice received”, change to “considered the advice received” * Prefer to keep applied over considered * Do not think the entirety of the advice was applied. * Do not object to the proposed change to considered. * How about “applied key aspects” instead of “applied” * Do not accept “applied key aspects” – would be OK as “considered” * “Consider and partially applied” * Not all agree with the change to “considered” so will revert to original language of “applied” * Proposed change from “disclosure” to “publication” * Some have said this is clarified in two places – could someone point where this is clarified? * Just because data is not protected by the GDPR does not mean you have the right to disclose it. Do not support publication of civil rights’ groups information when it could lead to abuse. * No agreement to change – will leave disclosure instead of publication. * Should be “must coordinate with the technical community” * Concern raised regarding disclosure was raised in the remainder of the sentence. * If the word is disclosure is kept, IPC would remove support from this recommendation. * Some believe this to be an editing error; others have argued that this is not an editing error. * The addition of RDDS changes the meaning of the sentence and do not support. * Proposed edit: The EPDP Team recommends that a field or fields MUST be created to facilitate differentiation between legal and natural person registration data and/or if that registration data contains personal or non-personal data. “Created” in this context means that ICANN org MUST coordinate with the technical community, for example the RDAP WG, to develop any necessary standards associated with using this field or fields within EPP and the RDDS. * When this was a footnote, it was referencing back to “must be created”. * Agree to the above language with the crossed-out text. b. Confirm next steps 5. Confirm next steps * 2 September – placeholder for EPDP Team meeting to allow for resolution of any remaining issues and/or objections to consensus designations * 2 September – deadline for submission of minority statements * 3 September – submission of Final Report to GNSO Council * 10 September – final deadline for minority statements (any minority statements submitted after 2 September will be added to the Final Report, with the updated version to be submitted to the Council in time for the September meeting document deadline) 6. Wrap up * This is a significant milestone. Thank you to everyone for all of the effort on this.