Dear EPDP Team, We really appreciate the enthusiasm which some of you have started your review of the documents but we would like to encourage you to put your input in the right place: 1. The comparison document/table should be used to flag any further questions or issues that the group should consider based on the advice that has been provided by B & B (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jzKGLeTlJFf8-HB70NmAS_fZJvZgJiwO/edit) 2. Any further input, suggestions or proposed edits on the latest version of the write up that are not directly linked to the B & B advice should be made in the form of comments not direct edits in the latest version of the write up (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1whCpXHm3UPmJ-IDSbliveSkwxL679x2U/edit) Thank for your collaboration! Caitlin, Marika and Berry Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant Principal | BAC in Black Consulting <http://bacinblack.com/> Mob: +1 (720) 839-5735 <https://twitter.com/berrycobb> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/berrycobb/> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of policy--- via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > Reply to: "policy@bacinblack.com <mailto:policy@bacinblack.com> " <policy@bacinblack.com <mailto:policy@bacinblack.com> > Date: Tuesday, 13 April 2021 at 13:49 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> " <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda EPDP Team Meeting #15 - 15 April at 14.00 UTC Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 15 April at 14.00 UTC. As you will see, the staff support team has produced an updated version of the legal/natural guidance write up. Attached you will find the redline version so you can review the changes that have been made based on the input that was provided by the deadline (note, where no input was provided, no action has been taken). A couple of items have been flagged for further EPDP Team input in the new version (and are also included in the agenda). If there are any items missing that you think require EPDP Team consideration, please flag accordingly. Also included in the agenda you will find a comparison document that compares and contrasts the latest version of the legal/natural guidance write up with the responses received to date from Bird & Bird in relation to legal/natural. This document has been reviewed by the legal committee for completeness. In the third column it identifies a number of questions for EPDP Team consideration. Last but not least, you will also find in the agenda a link to a set of proposed questions for the EPDP Team which are intended to help inform the deliberations on the question of whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on the topic of legal/natural. Note that the approach and document will be further introduced during Thursday’s meeting. Please review these documents in preparation for Thursday’s meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Marika and Berry ====== EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #15 Proposed Agenda Thursday 15 April 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) * Update from the legal committee 3. Legal vs. natural (75 minutes) i. Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“); ii. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. Guidance development a. Continue review of updated write up of guidance proposal * See comparison table developed by Staff Support Team and reviewed by Legal Committee – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jzKGLeTlJFf8-HB70NmAS_fZJvZgJiwO/edit * EPDP Team to deliberate on the questions identified in column 3: 1) Consider adding reference to information requirements in relation to consent? 2) Consider making more specific that the registrant (data subject) needs to have an easy means to correct mistakes? 3) Consider adding a step that following Registrant confirmation that the registration does not include any personal data, the registrar should contact the provided contact details to confirm that no personal data is present. 4) Consider adding guidance that sufficient time must be provided for the Registrant (data subject) to respond to the verification request, but that there is no need to wait for an affirmative response, unless an email bounces (in which case the Registrar should not proceed with publication). 5) Consider adding that the Registrar should request the Registrant, if self-identified as legal person, to provide a company registration number. 6) Consider making more specific that at this stage the Registrar should ask whether Registrant (data subject) consents to publication of personal data? 7) Consider adding that, as an example, a Registrar could also use the company registration number to verify legal personhood. 8) Consider whether such a tool (to assess whether email addresses include an individual's name or appear to be generic) exists and/or is feasible? 9) Consider reference to this guidance/opinion from B & B * EPDP Team to deliberate on remaining questions in the updated write up (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1whCpXHm3UPmJ-IDSbliveSkwxL679x2U/edit#he...) 1. Example scenarios refer to “publish the data” with publish defined as “provide Registration Data in the publicly accessible Registration Data Directory Services” – Volker has suggested this should be discussed further by the EPDP Team. 2. Example scenario 1-d – Registrar Team has suggested this is too prescriptive and proposed that if any changes are made then the data is treated as natural-person data until the Registrant indicates otherwise via repetition of steps a-c. Others have suggested that Registrant should be requested when updates are made whether this results in changes to data type. EPDP Team to discuss how to proceed. 3. Example scenario 3 – EPDP Team to discuss whether this scenario should be deleted. There were originally some concerns that there would be no registrant / data subject involvement in the determination of data type, but this has been clarified by indicating that the registrant must confirm the determination by the registrar. Is this concern sufficiently addressed or should this scenario be deleted. 4. Use of third party services to verify determination of data type – sentence has been updated based on suggestions made. Does this sufficiently address the concerns? 5. Other? * Confirm next steps b. Consideration of question i. Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“); * Review of questions developed by leadership team to determine positions of different groups – please be open minded and be constructive (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMV29jRPQEFGv2psZ2py2_F8cr93OeeA/edit) * Homework assignment: all teams to provide responses to these questions by Tuesday 20 April at the latest. * EPDP Team input * Confirm next steps 4. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. EPDP Team Meeting #16 Thursday 22 April at 14.00 UTC - note, placeholder plenary session is being scheduled to allow for a second weekly plenary meeting, if needed. b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant Principal | BAC in Black Consulting <http://bacinblack.com/> Mob: +1 (720) 839-5735 <https://twitter.com/berrycobb> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/berrycobb/>