Hi Caitlin & Team – Can you clarify Action Item #4? It looks like a small team is reviewing the financial assumptions by EOD today for discussion tomorrow, but Berry posted a note last Thursday (5 MAR) requesting that the entire group weigh in on these via the Google Doc. Speaking on behalf of Registrars – we have not had sufficient time to discuss the considerations in-depth with our ExCom or SG membership. However, the initial take of our EPDP delegation is that these assumptions (especially w.r.t. number of accredited users and traffic for non-LEA/non-UDRP responses) could be wildly underestimated, and result in dramatically increased costs and burdens to ICANN, CPs, Registrants, etc. Not to mention very long lead times for SSAD requestors to get accredited. So, in short, we’d like to request more time to review and discuss internally. Thx. J. ------------- James Bladel [signature_1950538632] From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 11:02 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Notes and action items - ICANN67 EPDP meeting (1 of 2) Notice: This email is from an external sender. Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the high-level notes and action items from today’s ICANN67 EPDP meeting (1 of 2). Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin High-level Notes and Action Items GNSO - EPDP Phase 2 Meeting (1 of 2) 10 March 2020 1. The EPDP Team agreed on the draft recommendation text for the display of information for affiliated vs. accredited privacy/proxy providers and data retention. Staff Support to include these draft recommendations in the addendum on Priority 2 items, which will be published for public comment. 2. Board liaisons to report back to the EPDP Team with further input re: the revised Purpose 2. For reference, revised purpose 2 (provided by Brian King) reads: “Enabling ICANN, in its role as data controller, to enforce policies related to the “maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning registered names and name servers,” including the Registration Data Policy and *Placeholder Name for Phase 2 Policy (if not also Registration Data Policy)*. (ICANN Bylaws, Annex G-1; ICANN Bylaws, Annex G-2)”. 3. In advance of the next EPDP meeting on Thursday, 12 March, all EPDP Groups to review the draft automation use cases and fill out the may vs. must chart<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8ZvAyPS0_SiyGiskjxsgtukDSzNK0aA/edit>. Specifically, each group to indicate, using the chart, whether they can live with the specific use case as a MAY automate, MUST automate, and, if applicable, what might be necessary to change convert the use case from MAY to MUST (either now or over a certain period of time – for example, some suggested to make it all MAY now, do a DPIA and then review again in the future). 4. Reminder: EPDP Team to review the draft financial consideration answers<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YtLHw4ASPOLwI_77bXGJrGypCHzYePQ5vaIWXzPatww/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs>. Becky, Amr, Volker, Franck, Marc A., and Mark Sv. to provide feedback on the draft answers by Wednesday, 11 March for the plenary Team’s review. As a reminder, please complete these past-due action items by COB today, Tuesday March 10: 1. Re: City field redaction<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdtRLaNm5DiWR_EPei4Oi64FaDauIXEQhnF2Lm_NxbI/edit>, Margie to propose, on-list, an automated use case for the disclosure of city field to share with the EPDP Team by Monday, 9 March. 2. Re: Potential OCTO Purpose,<https://docs.google.com/document/d/174PSGgWB-UTTcqIA-NndIVDkP6WR701tzwjDsozVRXM/edit> EPDP Team to review ICANN org’s recent response and ICANN Org’s responses from Phase 1<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Input+from+ICANN+Org> re: the use of nonpublic registration data prior to effective date of GDPR. Following review of the questions and answers from Phase 1, EPDP Team members who believe an additional question/response from ICANN org is still necessary, to provide the draft question and rationale for the EPDP Team’s review by Monday, 9 March. *
