Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting.
Best regards,
Berry, Marika, and Caitlin
--
EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #23
Proposed Agenda
Tuesday 18 May 2021 at 14.00 UTC
1.
Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
2.
Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes)
3.
Legal vs. natural (45 minutes)
Consensus policy question write up
1.
Some have suggested that recommendation #1 (“GNSO Council to monitor developments…”) does not seem to rise to the level of a recommendation as it is already
something that the Council is expected to do. If the intent is to signal that there should be a formal process to trigger reopening deliberation on this topic, the recommendation should state so explicitly.
o
Should the EPDP Team consider adding a more explicit trigger that would require the Council to reopen consideration of this topic? If yes, what should
this trigger be and who/how would it be determined that this trigger is met?
2.
Some have indicated disagreement with the inclusion of recommendation #2 (“ICANN org must implement the capability for Contracted Parties to use a standardized
data element in the registration data……”) as it is not ‘in any way necessary for the delivery of the service” nor does it “seem to serve any useful purpose to the data subject and may be doing harm by exposing additional information about the data subject”.
However, as other comments noted, the EPDP Team has not considered yet if/how this additional data element would be treated (redacted / non-redacted) nor is it clear who/how such a data element could be standardized.
o
If the EPDP Team would agree that a standardized data element must be added, how would this work in practice? Is this an ICANN org responsibility, would
it require changes to existing policy recommendations (e.g. CL&D), would this require work by other bodies, e.g. IETF?
o
If the EPDP Team would agree that a standardized data element must be added, what would the data element table look like for this data element (required
to be transferred from Rr to Ry, redacted / non-redacted) – see phase 1 recommendations #7, 8, 9 and 10?
3.
Some have expressed concern about the use of “unknown” (“that indicates whether the registration contains 1) a legal person, 2) a natural person, 3) unknown…”).
Some have suggested it should be replaced by “empty” or “not-specified”, others have suggested there should only be two options, namely legal or natural person. The Staff support team had understood from previous discussions that the use of “unknown” is fairly
standard and in this particular case would be helpful, for example, in the case of existing registrations for which no determination may have been made yet.
o
What would be the appropriate term to use for those registrations for which differentiation has not been done or for which the status is not known (e.g.
in cases where differentiation is requested but has not been completed yet)? Or should the field remain blank if unfilled rather than specified as “unknown”?
4.
Some have suggested that the use of “standardized data element” is vague and have suggested using “standardized mechanism” instead. However, from the
discussions to date it seems that a standardized data element has been clearly understood as meaning adding a data element to RDDS (or the Registrar’s internal system) that would allow a registrar to indicate whether the registration concerns a legal / natural
person and/or personal / non personal data.
o
Should the EPDP Team refer to “mechanism” instead? If so, how can mechanism be further described to make clear what is intended to mean and who would
be responsible for developing / implementing it.
4.
Feasibility of unique contacts (30 minutes)
Note, in a number of instances suggestions were made by some members of the team, which others objected to. Those items have been flagged as changes not applied in the redline version
– EPDP Team members are encouraged to reach out to each other to see if a compromise can be reached and communicate these back to the full team for consideration.
o
Should more specific guidance be included, or is it sufficient to refer to the B & B memo (which will be included in full in the annex to the Initial
Report)? If more specific guidance is to be included, what should this include?
o
Which approach should the EPDP Team follow for the purpose of the Initial Report?
o
Are there any volunteers that would be willing to write up a proposal on the agreed approach on this topic for the EPDP Team to consider?
5.
Homework assignments reminder
·
By Friday 21 May,
EPDP Team to review the updated LvN consensus question i write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_k0hVA6c2SvQPLiaZAlUllTKdplssofYlRHDkeR4mJ8/edit?usp=sharing)
Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments.
·
By Friday 21 May, EPDP Team to review updated version of feasibility of unique contacts write up for the Initial Report (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wpZWZzCNcDsAYuy3FqxV67POgDV2hrOvrwGa3kjddOc/edit?usp=sharing).
Please provide comments, suggestions and proposed edits in the form of comments.
6.
Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):