Margie

I am not sure what point you are making in this message. Keith made it clear that from the GNSO Council’s point of view (and from mine and most others on the EPDP), that the gating questions were not “answered” by the initial report. Your reply says that they were “addressed,” and you refer to tentative recommendations that the initial report asked for public comment on. These recommendations were, until just a few days ago, still being revised and debated (often by you).

 

Are you just playing word games here? To “address” a question means to discuss it or say things relevant or pertinent to it, but “addressing” a question is obviously not the same as “answering” it. There are no definitive answers to the gating questions until the final report is agreed.

 

And if you are impatient about “waiting” for Phase 2 to start, I would have to ask you why you and your colleagues in BC and IPC are constantly delaying progress in Phase 1 by proposing purely rhetorical word changes (e.g., adding “obligations” to purpose 1 or removing “requests” from Rec 18), changes that you know have no support outside your faction. These proposals have led to hours of pointless debate.

 

For you to complain about delay is like the proverbial child who murdered her parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

 

--MM

 

From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:50 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: [council] FW: FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
Importance: High

 

FYI-

 

From: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 9:35 AM
To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv@microsoft.com>, "sdelbiancoATnetchoice.org" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "'kurt@kjpritz.com'" <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "marika.konings@icann.org" <marika.konings@icann.org>, "rafik.dammak@gmail.com" <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>, Scott McCormick <smccormick@hackerone.com>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval

 

Hi Keith-

 

Thank you for talking to us about the GNSO Council’s upcoming vote on the EPDP “Final Report.”

 

We owed you additional pieces of information that help explain our view on how the charter is interpreted.

 

It appears the gating questions were addressed in the Initial report.  You’ll recall not all questions in the charter were termed “gating” – only Part 1(a) and Part 2(b), (c) and (f).

·         Part 1(a) (Purposes for Processing Registration Data) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendation 1

·         Part 2(b) (Collection of registration data by registrar) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendation 4

·         Part 2(c) (Transfer of data from registrar to registry) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendation 5

·         Part 2(f) (Publication of data by registrar/registry) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendations 8 and 10

 

As I explained, nowhere in the Charter or elsewhere does it call for a consensus decision of the Final Report in order to move ahead with Phase 2.  Instead the Charter states:

 

“Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. “

 

Since there was consensus to publish the Initial Report, the Council should have simply notified the EPDP Team in November that it had no objection to proceeding to Phase 2.  Indeed, this reference to the Initial Report confirms that there was no intent to wait until consensus for the Final Report.

 

In our view,  it is problematic to change the interpretation of the Charter midstream during the EPDP’s deliberations for those stakeholder groups and constituencies that relied on this interpretation of the Charter. 

 

Per our discussion, Phase 1 was not fully completed; there are questions that should have been answered in Phase 1 but were recommended in the Phase 1 Final Report to be delayed into Phase 2 for consideration and work.  This non-exhaustive list includes (referenced by charter section):

·         Charter section: None

Recommendation 2: The EPDP team considers whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate work by ICANN Org’s OCTO.

 

·         Charter section: P.7: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data

Recommendation 3: Questions about a standardized access model (e.g., whether such a system should be adopted, what are legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data, etc.)

 

·         Charter section:  Part 2(g), P.5: Data retention

Recommendation 15: Undertake a review of all ICANN Org active processes to document instances when personal data is requested from a registrar beyond the period of the “life of the registration.”

 

·         Charter section: Part 2(h)(3-5), P.5: Legal vs. Natural Persons

Recommendation 17: The EPDP Team will discuss the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2.

 

·         Charter section:  P.7: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Reg. Data

Recommendation 18:  Replacement of Secs. 4.1 and 4.2 of Appendix A to the Temp Spec by criteria enumerated by the EPDP team.

 

·         Charter section: Part 4 (n-q), P.7: Updates to other consensus polices 

o    URS

o    UDRP

o    Transfer policy

o    Sunsetting Whois (following migration to RDAP)

 

As previously discussed and highlighted above, the (actual) Final Report is incomplete and cannot form the basis of a consensus policy until the charter’s work is complete.  One needs to look no further than the Board resolution in support of this, including elucidation of the appropriate timeline:

 

As required when a temporary policy or specification is adopted, the Board also is taking action to implement the consensus policy development process. The Board will consult with the GNSO Council on potential paths forward (e.g. Expedited Policy Development Process) for considering the development of a consensus policy on the issues within the Temporary Specification, which must be concluded in a one-year time period.

 

The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report).  Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year.  Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work.  What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report - – which must occur prior to the expiration of the Temp Spec on May 25, 2019. 

 

We hope this helps clarify our thoughts as the Council considers these procedural issues in its call later today.  We’d like to encourage the Council to ask the EDPD Leadership to create a timeline for producing the Final Report -Part II that brings the work to a close in an expedited manner.

 

All the best,

 

Margie 

 

 

 

From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM
To: "marie.pattullo@aim.be" <marie.pattullo@aim.be>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv@microsoft.com>, "sdelbiancoATnetchoice.org" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>, "'kurt@kjpritz.com'" <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "marika.konings@icann.org" <marika.konings@icann.org>, "rafik.dammak@gmail.com" <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval

 

Hi all,

 

Thanks for forwarding this note from the BC’s EPDP WG reps. I’ll be happy to provide some additional context and guidance, both for Councilors and for the members of the EPDP WG. I’m copying Kurt, Rafik and Marika, so this can be forwarded to the EPDP WG list.

 

  1. During the EPDP WG Chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team made clear there would need to be two distinct phases of the work of the EPDP, each with its own Initial Report and Final Report. Phase One would focus on the Temporary Specification with an imposed 12-month deadline of May 25, 2019 due to the Board’s decision to invoke the Temp Spec. Phase Two would focus on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data after the gating questions from Phase One were addressed and the GNSO Council agreed. Here is the Charter language specifying the Objectives and timing:

 

“To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the EPDP Team’s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data as well as regarding the EPDP Team’s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data, pursuant to the processes described in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Expedited PDP Manual. Work on recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data should not commence until all gating questions have been answered. Similarly, delivery of the Final Report on the EPDP Team’s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board (before 25 May 2019) should not be held up by work that may still be ongoing in relation to the EPDP Team’s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data.”

 

  1. The Phase One Initial Report was delivered on 21 November and public comments were received, analyzed and incorporated. During the chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team agreed, after much negotiation, to consider initiating the Phase Two work after the publication of the Phase One Initial Report, rather than after the Phase One Final Report, with the hope/expectation that the gating questions would have been sufficiently answered and the foundation for Phase Two would have been established. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Phase One Initial Report was not sufficiently complete, the gating questions were not yet addressed, and much more work was required before Phase Two could begin. Fortunately, with the current Phase One Final Report nearly complete, the EPDP will be able to begin work on Phase Two in short order.

 

  1. As everyone should have seen in my email to the Council list last night (responding to Rafik’s note submitting the draft Final Report and Council Motion), our proposed motion will approve the Phase One Final Report and Consensus Policy recommendations AND signal the Council’s agreement (through non-objection) that the Phase Two work can begin. This is a significant moment where the EPDP WG is recommending a Consensus Policy replacement to the Temp Spec to be confirmed by Council and ICANN Board, it has substantially answered the gating questions, and it also agreed to defer certain issues to Phase Two. This is the definition of bottom-up consensus policy-making, and the GNSO Council looks forward to approving the Phase One Final Report, delivering it to the Board, and to supporting the EPDP WG in its Phase Two work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or Uniform Access Model.

 

To summarize:

 

 

I hope this helps provide clarity around the views and intent of the GNSO Council as we initiated this important work and our expectations for the coming weeks. I appreciate the opportunity to review and reflect on the Charter and the work of the EPDP and I’m impressed by the group’s output in a very compressed timeframe.

 

Please let me know if anyone has follow up questions. Otherwise, we’ll look forward to considering the EPDP WG Phase One Final Report during our 21 February and/or 4 March GNSO Council meetings.

 

Regards,

Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair

 

 

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:36 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: Mark Svancarek (CELA) <marksv@microsoft.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
Importance: High

 

 

Dear all,

 

I’ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC’s EPDP participants. I’m copying them here for ease.

 

We’d appreciate your thoughts.

 

Thanks

 

Marie

 

 

Hi –

 

Thank you for sharing this note.   I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report – although it is misnamed a “Final Report” is really only an “Phase 1 Interim Report” since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered.  As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete.   

 

I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but  there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as:

 

…the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added)

 

This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP.  However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team.  Further, according to the charter:

 

System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data

Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added)

 

The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report).  Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year.  Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work.  What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2.

 

Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses “Reasonable Access.”  In what is labeled the draft final report, the charter’s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase.  Again, the EPDP team’s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current “consensus calls” instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed.

 

As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council’s instructions should be updated accordingly.

 

All the best,

 

Margie

 

 

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM
To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval

 

hi all,

 

Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report.

 

You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report.

 

Best Regards,

 

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Date: mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 08:10
Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>

 

Hi all,

 

I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard.

 

The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report.

 

Best Regards,

 

Rafik Dammak

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Councillors:

 

We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. 

 

The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. 

 

The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of “quiet period” to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. 

 

With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: 

·         The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation

·         The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation

·         The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. 

 

In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final.

 

Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. 

 

We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations.

 

Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. 

 

Best regards,

 

EPDP Leadership Team