Milton, ARS can readily be considered part of Purpose 5 if we change the references to Contractual Compliance (upper case denoting a specific department) and make it more general. It is effectively an audit. The language in the purpose rationale is very specific and would need to be generalized. When I had suggested this earlier, there was resistance to doing that, wanting to keep it strictly related to the tasks of the Contractual Compliance department. Alan At 21/01/2019 01:49 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Hi, Kurt For the most part I concur with what you?ve put here, but I have two differences that I?d like to record: 1. I was asked to summarize the public comments on Rec 1 (additional purposes). My work was submitted to the list. It shows that ARS is asking for data disclosure to ICANN for compliance purposes. Ergo, I have a hard time understanding why it is not already covered by Purpose 5. While I agree that we may need more legal opinion on whether ICANN is a controller, which would affect its ability to obtain data for compliance purposes, we did not agree to push ARS as a ?new purpose? to Phase 2 nor to consider it as a derivation of Purpose 2 (response to lawful disclosure requests) because it clearly does not fit in either category. I don?t think this is a controversial recommendation; whatever your view of ARS, it is hardly debatable that this is a compliance issue not a new purpose. 2. On Purpose 1, it was clear that there is not, and never will be, consensus on adding ?obligations? to Purpose 1. Obligations to third parties are covered by Purpose 2, and obligations to ICANN, Registries and Registrars are covered by the clauses referring to ?subject to contractual terms, conditions and policies.? Of the small group that was pushing adding the term ?obligations,? no one was able to make a credible case that such obligations are not covered by other purposes or by the existing language. So that is a settled issue. We are waiting for wording revisions from the CPH that would split this into two purposes, that?s all I recall. Hope your summary of program status can be modified to reflect these comments. Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] <http://www.internetgovernance.org/> From: Gnso-epdp-team [ mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 8:47 PM To: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Program Status Hi Everyone: Thank you again for you attentiveness and doggedness last week. Terrific. Attached is a status of our work. The first is an overall status outline all issues; the second is a tabular listing of the status of each Purpose and Recommendation. Please read both docs to get a complete picture. We will follow up with guides for each of the upcoming meetings. Thank you again, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
