All,

This is a little bit of a repeat of what I said in Kobe, but I think the mind map does a good job laying what we need to cover in phase 2.  I like how it covers the  items from the charter as well as those items deferred from phase 1.  I see one of our first tasks in phase 2 as agreeing to scope and I think the mind map is helpful in establishing items that should be in scope.

The mind map also covers areas where we expect or are looking for additional input.  In some cases we have received that in the form of legal advice, but need to decide how to act on that legal advice.  In other areas we’ve asked for ICANN to undertake a review (recommendation #15) to help inform data retention requirements.  In cases like this I think we need to be specific about what we are asking for and what we expect to do once we have that input.

The mind map includes recommendation #14 which covers Privacy/Proxy.  Here we’ve discussed getting feedback from the PPSAI IRT which is good, but this is an area we might want to expand our call for input.  The main focus of phase 2 will be on policy for access to non-public registration data.  This is something Privacy/Proxy providers have been dealing with for many years.  It might be useful if we looked here for input on what works and doesn’t work as an early input for our phase 2 work.

• How should the team prioritize going forward?

I’d like to see us start by agreeing on what is in scope and what the deliverables are for phase 2.  I’m not sure we were always on the same page for those items during phase 1 and so being clear on that up front should be our first step.  More specifically on how the team should prioritize, once we agree on the scope we can lay out a work plan for addressing all the items in scope starting with items that are prerequisite for others.  We should try and prioritize where we are asking for input from outside the working group as it may take time and they are often intended to inform working group deliberations.

• What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified?

I understand that dependencies here refers to the items in the mind map where we are asking for input from outside the working group (such as ICANN org on retention or the PPSAI on Privacy/Proxy).  As noted above, these items should be prioritized as they are intended to inform working group deliberations.  The working group should do some up front work to clarify what input we are looking for and what we expect to do with that input once we have it.  We should work with the respective groups to make sure our requests are clear and reasonable for them to respond to.

• What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date?

I would like to see the legal sub-team take a first pass at discussing the guidance.  I think the group A/B approach to public comments from phase 1 provides a good template where a sub team did initial triage and when consensus was reached it was provided as recommendations to the plenary and where it was not, the issue was left to the full working group to deliberate on.  A similar approach leveraging the legal sub team could work here as well.

• What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward?

I don’t think we should set a target date and work backwards from that, rather we should identify the scope and develop a work plan that establishes a timeline based on that scope.  I think in Kobe I heard pretty strong agreement that the work of phase 2 is important and should move forward as quickly as is practical, but that we don’t want to have the same frantic deadline imposed timeline we had in phase 1.

Best,

Marc

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:50 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting

Dear EPDP Team,

As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions:

• How should the team prioritize going forward?
• What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified?
• What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date?
• What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward?

Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list.

Best regards,

Caitlin, Berry and Marika

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@icann.org

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.