Hi, To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about this suggestion. I suppose it’d depend on what we would be expected to do with the answer we receive. A more appealing approach to me would be to get a clearer understanding of exactly what the “small group” will be expected to do (what it’s mandate and scope of its work will look like). I believe this is something on which there was broad agreement during last week’s call. Clarifying this would be helpful to the EPDP Team making its own determination on what balance of skills and representation might be found to be constructive. If the purpose of the additional bullet is simply to help inform our decision on appointments to the small group, then I have no objection to it. However, if adding it will result in ICANN org setting parameters of some sort that restricts the EPDP Team’s ability to make small group member selections, then I would not be very much in favor of this. Ultimately, I believe the decision on the composition of this group should be ours, and hopefully Goran’s team can accommodate our choices. We just need to have a better understanding of what is being asked of us to make this decision. There are bits and pieces that are suggestive to what the small group’s job might be in both Goran’s letter as well as Keith’s email, but still…, the task before the “small group” isn’t precisely clear. It seems to me that a combination of bullets 2 and 4 in the draft response are meant to seek clarity on this, however, it might be helpful to make a point of enquiring about this with more clarity. If we could amend the fourth bullet to read something like: “What is the expected scope of work of the small group, and could examples of types of questions/issues the group is expected to work on be provided?” Also, I propose that this bullet be moved to the top of the list to stress its importance, as the answer to this question is significant to how we assess the answers to the other ones. It should probably be followed by what is bullet 2 in the current draft, then bullet 1, then finally, bullet 3. Furthermore, Goran’s letter mentions that further work will need to be done to inform the discussions with the EC and DPAs, while Keith’s email goes further when he says:

“The key takeaways from our interaction with Goran were (1) it is still unclear that a UAM with ICANN in a centralized role will be a viable solution, (2) that he is still working with the European Commission and DPAs to explore whether a UAM might be viable (both from a legal and risk assumption perspective), and (3) that he wants to engage with the EPDP Team to help inform that ongoing work.”

It would be of great assistance to us if more details on this could be shared with the EPDP Team. We’ve already seen comments from the EC on the Phase 1 Final Report and Recommendations, as well as the follow-up correspondence that Chris was kind of enough to share with us. However, my impression I’m left with following Goran’s letter and Keith’s email is that there has been some discussion as well as concerns expressed with a UAM based on the Technical Study Group’s proposed model. This isn’t something we’ve really worked on as a team, yet, and unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t seen any details about a to-and-fro between ICANN and the EC and EU DPAs on this. I assume these would indeed need to be shared once the small group is formed, however, having a head-start wouldn’t be a bad thing. Is this something we could bake in to our response? I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr

On May 4, 2019, at 2:57 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

Thanks Marika and Janis. My only suggestion would be to add a request for any particular expertise or background for members of this “small group”, or if these folks are simply meant to be representative of the EPDP.

------------- James Bladel GoDaddy

---------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2019 07:13 To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby

Dear EPDP Team,

On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-k...).

Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest.

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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...).

+1 to this. Thanks. Amr Sent from Mobile On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:22 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Should we maybe add a line that any input from such a small group would only be tentative and subject to confirmation by the whole group? We are at the start of the work here and I have strong reservation of delegating a core part of our work to a small team without even having first outlined the position of the entire group.

It seems to be too soon for this.

If on the other hand the only purpose of the small group is to observe the work of ICANN org and report back to the EPDP to inform our deliberations, that would be more acceptable.

Best,

Volker

Am 04.05.2019 um 14:12 schrieb Marika Konings:

...

Dear EPDP Team,

On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-k...).

Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest.

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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...).

_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH

T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

Hi Hadia and team, I agree from Goran’s letter the mandate of the small team is clear…what isn’t quite clear is how that mandate fits into the overall work plan for the broader group and how these two efforts ultimately will merge. Personally speaking I am very concered that before we have really started our Phase 2 work at all, we are already looking to break off a certain group to work with ICANN on a critically important piece of the puzzle to our success. And let’s not forget our old friend Phase 1 which, to date, has not been approved by the Board and even when it is will still need to be implemented. Regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:59 AM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby All, The mandate of the small team is quite clear, and that is to work on helping inform the discussions with the EC and the data protection authorities in relation to a UAM, based on the model proposed by the TSG and the extent to which such a solution diminishes the legal liability of the contracted parties. So certainly, the role of the small team is not to observe the work of ICANN org and report it back, If this was the purpose, someone from ICANN org could have taken on the role. Generally speaking the expected output of the whole EPDP team is a scenario that satisfies the above and is accepted by the EC and the data protection authorities. A solution that respects the privacy rights, allows lawful access to third parties with legitimate interests and diminishes the contracted parties legal liabilities. Kind Regards Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 1:25 PM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby +1 to this. Thanks. Amr Sent from Mobile On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:22 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Should we maybe add a line that any input from such a small group would only be tentative and subject to confirmation by the whole group? We are at the start of the work here and I have strong reservation of delegating a core part of our work to a small team without even having first outlined the position of the entire group. It seems to be too soon for this. If on the other hand the only purpose of the small group is to observe the work of ICANN org and report back to the EPDP to inform our deliberations, that would be more acceptable. Best, Volker Am 04.05.2019 um 14:12 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-k...). Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest. 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<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

Hi all, I agree with much of what’s been said. It is difficult for us to understand what exactly the discussion are going to focus on as we have not witnessed previous exchanges. We got signals from the authorities previously that we we / ICANN should do our homework and that tanhible results should be presented and sought feedback on. I think it is critically important that - our group does some work - then discusses this with ICANN and then starts an exchange with the EC. During such exchange, neither the small team nor ICANN should make any promises or agreements. This it not to push such exchange into a distant future, but we need to prepare properly in order not to mess this up. As a consequence, my suggestion would be to communicate to Göran that - we are happy to send a small team / delegation - the meeting should be properly prepared and a time for such exchange should be jointly determined and - neither the small team nor ICANN makes any commitments. Best, Thomas

Am 08.05.2019 um 18:54 schrieb Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>:

Hi,

It's less clear to me, exactly for the reason Matt outlined below. How are we meant to inform any discussion on a UAM, whether it be a model proposed by the TSG or otherwise, until we’ve come up with our own answers to the many questions we still need to tackle? If we had been invited to inform discussions after we had completed phase 2 of our work, it would have been a more straight-forward matter. But that isn’t the case just yet.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to working with Goran’s team on this at all. At a minimum, being directly engaged with whatever discussions are taking place with the EC and DPAs is bound to be helpful to informing OUR work. However, I’m still not clear on how WE are the ones who will be “helping inform the discussion…,” at this time. Just saying that we will doesn’t quite do it for me.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On May 8, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> wrote:

Hi Hadia and team,

I agree from Goran’s letter the mandate of the small team is clear…what isn’t quite clear is how that mandate fits into the overall work plan for the broader group and how these two efforts ultimately will merge.

Personally speaking I am very concered that before we have really started our Phase 2 work at all, we are already looking to break off a certain group to work with ICANN on a critically important piece of the puzzle to our success.

And let’s not forget our old friend Phase 1 which, to date, has not been approved by the Board and even when it is will still need to be implemented.

Regards, Matt

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:59 AM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby

All,

The mandate of the small team is quite clear, and that is to work on helping inform the discussions with the EC and the data protection authorities in relation to a UAM, based on the model proposed by the TSG and the extent to which such a solution diminishes the legal liability of the contracted parties. So certainly, the role of the small team is not to observe the work of ICANN org and report it back, If this was the purpose, someone from ICANN org could have taken on the role.

Generally speaking the expected output of the whole EPDP team is a scenario that satisfies the above and is accepted by the EC and the data protection authorities. A solution that respects the privacy rights, allows lawful access to third parties with legitimate interests and diminishes the contracted parties legal liabilities.

Kind Regards Hadia

From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 1:25 PM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby

+1 to this.

Thanks.

Amr

Sent from Mobile

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:22 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: Should we maybe add a line that any input from such a small group would only be tentative and subject to confirmation by the whole group? We are at the start of the work here and I have strong reservation of delegating a core part of our work to a small team without even having first outlined the position of the entire group.

It seems to be too soon for this.

If on the other hand the only purpose of the small group is to observe the work of ICANN org and report back to the EPDP to inform our deliberations, that would be more acceptable.

Best,

Volker

Am 04.05.2019 um 14:12 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team,

On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (seehttps://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-k...).

Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest.

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.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH

T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

I agree with Matt here. While I understand the motivation, the TSG itself was always a rather poorly conceived effort to jump the gun on the issues related to disclosure of redacted Whois data. We were told that its only purpose was to assess technical feasibility and make our work go faster, but in fact it opened up a parallel process raising all kinds of questions about how our work intersects with it. Now we seem to be compounding the problem. Let’s put a stop to it and get things in order before pushing out into yet another problematic direction. And thanks to Matt also for reminding us that the board has some serious work to do regarding phase 1 Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Matt Serlin Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 9:55 AM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg>; Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby Hi Hadia and team, I agree from Goran’s letter the mandate of the small team is clear…what isn’t quite clear is how that mandate fits into the overall work plan for the broader group and how these two efforts ultimately will merge. Personally speaking I am very concered that before we have really started our Phase 2 work at all, we are already looking to break off a certain group to work with ICANN on a critically important piece of the puzzle to our success. And let’s not forget our old friend Phase 1 which, to date, has not been approved by the Board and even when it is will still need to be implemented. Regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:59 AM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby All, The mandate of the small team is quite clear, and that is to work on helping inform the discussions with the EC and the data protection authorities in relation to a UAM, based on the model proposed by the TSG and the extent to which such a solution diminishes the legal liability of the contracted parties. So certainly, the role of the small team is not to observe the work of ICANN org and report it back, If this was the purpose, someone from ICANN org could have taken on the role. Generally speaking the expected output of the whole EPDP team is a scenario that satisfies the above and is accepted by the EC and the data protection authorities. A solution that respects the privacy rights, allows lawful access to third parties with legitimate interests and diminishes the contracted parties legal liabilities. Kind Regards Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 1:25 PM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby +1 to this. Thanks. Amr Sent from Mobile On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:22 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Should we maybe add a line that any input from such a small group would only be tentative and subject to confirmation by the whole group? We are at the start of the work here and I have strong reservation of delegating a core part of our work to a small team without even having first outlined the position of the entire group. It seems to be too soon for this. If on the other hand the only purpose of the small group is to observe the work of ICANN org and report back to the EPDP to inform our deliberations, that would be more acceptable. Best, Volker Am 04.05.2019 um 14:12 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-k...). Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest. 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<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.