Hi all, We echo Amr’s point about the arguments appearing only in a footnote. The initial report needs to be updated in a few respects: 1. The report should not relegate any group’s position to a footnote, which it currently does in a number of places. 2. The report should not present a position as a team recommendation when there are opposing or divergent positions, which it also currently does in a number of places. 3. The report should be careful to phrase the questions objectively, and not leading toward a particular answer or viewpoint. Thank you. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy & Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com<mailto:brian.king@markmonitor.com> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:56 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Updated data redaction language Hi again, I now see where the NCSG views expressed in the 10 November email are located in the document (third bullet on first page). It seems I need to offer apologies for the second time this evening, this time for an oversight/not reading the document carefully enough. Thanks to Marika for pointing out to me where the relevant text is located. I am, however, still concerned that the rationale supporting the arguments in favor of redacting the Organization field are included only as a footnote. Recital 26 might be alright, as it is a fairly specific reference, although I’m not confident that readers of the report will actually look it up. The section from the WSGR memo, on the other hand, is not so straight forward at all. I doubt that readers of the initial report will easily locate the relevant section of the report that addresses this issue. It might be a better idea to include the relevant language in the body of the report, as well as a link to the memo itself. Apologies once again, and thanks. Amr On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, I don’t understand how we ended up with this document. The NCSG already provided comments/rationale on why we don’t support not redacting the Organization field on 10 November via email, which I understand is supported by the ISPCP, the RySG and the RrSG. This same rationale was discussed during the last F2F meeting in Barcelona. I don’t, however, see any of it included in the 14 November document. Am I missing something? Thanks. Amr On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:10 PM, Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com<mailto:matt@brandsight.com>> wrote: Hi Marika, Thanks for sending the updated language…it will be added to the pile ☺ One note though I immediately saw, can you please add the RrSG to the following text: “As such, the NCSG, ISPCP and RySG do not support not redacting this information.” Regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM 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] Updated data redaction language Dear All, Following yesterday’s discussion, please find attached the updated proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report in relation to data redaction. Note that this version includes input from Margie and Benedict in relation to the action item from yesterday’s EPDP Team meeting (“Margie to provide language that describes the organizations supporting not redacting the “organization” field. Benedict to provide language to explain systemic risk of not publishing organization field.”). If you have any further comments and/or proposed edits, please share these with the list as soon as possible. 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...>.

Hi Brian, I fully agree on your points 1 and 3 and have a suggestion to make with respect to no. 2: We could write - where appropriate - that certain recommendations enjoy rough consensus in our group (where we all agree we could speak of full consensus) and mention the views of those not supporting or objecting as dissenting opinions including a rationale that can be provided by those who object to inform about why they are not supporting a certain recommendation. The reason for that is that - we follow the terminology of our charter, which makes our reporting more cohesive and - we make it easier for the community to understand which of the recommendations will be consensus recommendations if there are no changes after the initial report. I hope this is helpful. Kind regards Thomas

Am 15.11.2018 um 01:14 schrieb King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>:

Hi all,

We echo Amr’s point about the arguments appearing only in a footnote.

The initial report needs to be updated in a few respects: The report should not relegate any group’s position to a footnote, which it currently does in a number of places. The report should not present a position as a team recommendation when there are opposing or divergent positions, which it also currently does in a number of places. The report should be careful to phrase the questions objectively, and not leading toward a particular answer or viewpoint.

Thank you.

Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy & Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 <tel:+1%20(443)%20761-3726> brian.king@markmonitor.com <mailto:brian.king@markmonitor.com>

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:56 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Updated data redaction language

Hi again,

I now see where the NCSG views expressed in the 10 November email are located in the document (third bullet on first page). It seems I need to offer apologies for the second time this evening, this time for an oversight/not reading the document carefully enough. Thanks to Marika for pointing out to me where the relevant text is located.

I am, however, still concerned that the rationale supporting the arguments in favor of redacting the Organization field are included only as a footnote. Recital 26 might be alright, as it is a fairly specific reference, although I’m not confident that readers of the report will actually look it up. The section from the WSGR memo, on the other hand, is not so straight forward at all. I doubt that readers of the initial report will easily locate the relevant section of the report that addresses this issue. It might be a better idea to include the relevant language in the body of the report, as well as a link to the memo itself.

Apologies once again, and thanks.

Amr

On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote:

Hi,

I don’t understand how we ended up with this document. The NCSG already provided comments/rationale on why we don’t support not redacting the Organization field on 10 November via email, which I understand is supported by the ISPCP, the RySG and the RrSG. This same rationale was discussed during the last F2F meeting in Barcelona. I don’t, however, see any of it included in the 14 November document.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:10 PM, Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com <mailto:matt@brandsight.com>> wrote:

Hi Marika,

Thanks for sending the updated language…it will be added to the pile ☺

One note though I immediately saw, can you please add the RrSG to the following text:

“As such, the NCSG, ISPCP and RySG do not support not redacting this information.”

Regards, Matt

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM 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] Updated data redaction language

Dear All,

Following yesterday’s discussion, please find attached the updated proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report in relation to data redaction. Note that this version includes input from Margie and Benedict in relation to the action item from yesterday’s EPDP Team meeting (“Margie to provide language that describes the organizations supporting not redacting the “organization” field. Benedict to provide language to explain systemic risk of not publishing organization field.”). If you have any further comments and/or proposed edits, please share these with the list as soon as possible.

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