Dear EPDP Team, As noted in support staff’s email of Tuesday, 6 November and the subsequent discussion during Tuesday’s EPDP Team meeting, support staff organized the outstanding issues in the draft Initial Report based on proposed method of review. The EPDP Leadership Team deemed the final group of items as less controversial, and therefore, recommended a confirmation/discussion over the email list so that the more difficult items could be dealt with during our limited EPDP meeting time. Below, please find a short description of the mailing list review items. In short, if you have feedback on any of the below issues, please consider responding to the list, or, alternatively, noting any concerns in the Initial Report Input Google Doc. (For ease of mark up, the corresponding page in the draft Initial Report and the relevant charter question (if any) are noted below.) Please note that bracketed text indicates draft text proposed by support staff. Please provide any feedback by COB Tuesday, 13 November. Topic: Consensus Policy Updates Initial Report Page: 36 Draft preliminary recommendation: [The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements: • Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy • Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS • Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy • WHOIS Data Reminder Policy • Transfer Policy • Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules] Question to EPDP Team: Does the draft recommendation accurately reflect the EPDP Team’s discussion at ICANN63 that in order to ensure consistency across ICANN policies, ICANN’s Consensus Policies may have to be updated following adoption of the EPDP Team’s policy recommendations? Topic: Policy Implementation Initial Report Page: 36 Draft recommendation/text: [Although the objective is to keep the timeframe for implementation to a minimum, additional time will be necessary to implement these policy recommendations. As such, the EPDP Team is considering how to avoid a gap between the adoption of these policy recommendations by the ICANN Board and the subsequent implementation, noting the impending expiration of the Temporary Specification requirements. The EPDP Team is considering various options, such as the adoption of an interim policy in the form of the Temporary Specification for a set timeframe or recommending that the Temporary Specification requirements remain in place until the completion of implementation of these policy recommendations. The EPDP Team expects to obtain further guidance from ICANN Org on the options in this regard and make a recommendation accordingly in the Final Report.] Question to EPDP Team: The draft recommendation aims to provide an approach for the potential gap between the adoption of these policy recommendations by the ICANN Board and the subsequent implementation, noting the impending expiration of the Temporary Specification requirements. The recommendation is based on previous discussions, e.g., the discussion from the CPH – ICANN Board meeting at ICANN63. Are there any concerns with the proposed text on p. 36? Topic: Policy Change Impact Analysis Initial Report Page: 37 Draft recommendation/text: [If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the EPDP must include a policy impact analysis and a set of metrics to measure the effectiveness of the policy change, including source(s) of baseline data for that purpose (from the EPDP Team Charter: Determine the policy goals for this exercise, within the parameters set by the Temporary Interim Specification. Identify potential policy goals that were omitted in the Temporary Specification and set aside for further Council deliberation. Determine a set of questions which, when answered, provide the insight necessary to achieve the policy goals. Determine the types of data that may assist the WG in better scoping the issues and identify whether it can be collected within the timeframe, and assemble or substitute information that can be analyzed to help answer each question. Determine a set of metrics which can be applied to the data, analysis, and achievement of policy objectives. Collect this data to the extent feasible, and determine a process for ongoing metric analysis and program evaluation to measure success of this policy process.] [Per the EPDP Team’s Charter, the goal of this effort is to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the elements of the Temporary Specification as outlined in the charter and answer the charter questions. The EPDP Team shall consider what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law”. The EPDP Team will further consider a set of metrics to help inform the evaluation to measure success of these policy recommendations, but would welcome input during the public comment period on the set of metrics that should be considered.] Question to EPDP Team: The draft recommendation notes that further consideration to an impact analysis and corresponding proposed metrics will need to be assessed in the next phase of the EPDP Team’s work. Is this proposed text on p. 37 acceptable for inclusion in the Initial Report? Topic: Length of Public Comment Period Initial Report Page: 4 Draft Text: This Initial Report will be posted for public comment for [30 days]. Question to EPDP Team: Is the EPDP Team OK with a 30-day public comment period? Note: the minimum public comment period for an EPDP Initial Report is 30 days, and this minimum period is suggested due to the short timeline the EPDP Team for completing its work. Topic: Sunsetting WHOIS requirements Initial Report Page: 35-36                 Charter question(s): q) Sunsetting WHOIS Contractual Requirements q1) After migration to RDAP, when can requirements in the Contracts to use WHOIS protocol be eliminated? q2) If EPDP Team’s decision includes a replacement directory access protocol, such as RDAP, when can requirements in the Contracts to use WHOIS protocol be eliminated? Proposed Text: [At the time of publication of this Initial Report, the EPDP Team elected to prioritize its policy recommendations with respect to the Temporary Specification. The EPDP Team believes addressing eventual migration to RDAP and sunsetting of WHOIS requirements is premature at this time, i.e., before the policy recommendations are finalized. Following receipt of further feedback from the ICANN Community and Data Protection Authorities (if received), the EPDP Team will finalize its recommendations with respect to the Temporary Specification. In the process of this finalization, the EPDP Team will consider drafting implementation guidance regarding the eventual migration to RDAP and consequent sunsetting of WHOIS requirements. While the exact date of the possible elimination of WHOIS requirements will be determined in the policy implementation phase, the EPDP Team notes any current WHOIS requirements negated or made redundant by eventual policy recommendations will no longer be required.]  Question to EPDP Team: Is the EPDP Team OK with this proposed text as a response to Charter Questions q1 and q2? Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry and Caitlin