Dear EPDP Team: Please find the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Phase 2A Call #01. The next meeting will be Thursday, 14 January 2021 at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #01 Thursday 17 December 2020 at 14.00 UTC Action Items Please refer to the Google Sheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8AdVdrRIdrw/edit#gid=0> for Action Items. We will review the action items at the beginning of each call. Notes 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates 2. Welcome and introductions (Chair) (15 minutes) a. Chair introduction b. Each member to briefly introduce themselves 1. Vice-Chair Selection (Chair) (10 minutes) The charter foresees that “The EPDP Team, once formed, will select one or two Vice Chairs to assist the Chair. Should at any point a Vice-Chair need to step into the role of Chair, the same expectations with regards to fulfilling the role of chair as outlined in this charter will apply”. EPDP to consider whether appointing a vice-chair or vice-chairs is deemed necessary, or could, similar to phase 1 and phase 2, the Council liaison serve in this role? a. EPDP Team input * The GNSO Council liaison acting as the vice-chair worked well during Phase 1 and 2, and is likely the cleanest and quickest option available. * Is it procedurally possible to have a vice-chair from a non-GNSO constituency, e.g., ALAC, GAC, SSAC? * There doesn’t seem to be anything in the charter that would prohibit an AC team member from assuming the vice-chair role; however, if stepping in for the chair, the vice-chair would have to act with neutrality (note, this would not prevent a vice-chair for advocating for their respective group’s position when not acting in a vice-chair capacity). * There is a risk of over-advocacy and losing credibility as a vice-chair * Action: Keith to reach out to Philippe about the timing of the GNSO Council’s appointment of an EPDP Phase 2A liaison. * Will defer decision on the role of vice-chair until the next meeting on Thursday, 14 January 2021. b. Decide on next steps (formal decision expected to take place during next meeting) 4. Review of Council instructions to EPDP Team (Staff Support Team) (10 minutes) a. Questions to be addressed * Legal v. Natural * Questions to be addressed: * 1. 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“); * 2. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. * Note: Per GNSO Council instruction, the EPDP Team is expected to review: * 1. the study undertaken by ICANN org (as requested by the EPDP Team and approved by the GNSO Council during Phase 1); and * 2. the legal guidance provided by Bird & Bird; and * 3. the substantive input provided on this topic during the public comment forum on the addendum and answer: * * Feasibility of unique anonymized contacts * Questions to be addressed: * 1. Whether or not unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address is feasible, and if feasible, whether it should be a requirement. * 2. If feasible, but not a requirement, what guidance, if any, can be provided to Contracted Parties who may want to implement uniform anonymized email addresses. * Note: per GNSO Council instruction, the EPDP Team is expected to review the legal guidance and consider specific proposals that provide sufficient safeguards to address issues flagged in the legal memo. Groups that requested additional time to consider this topic, which include ALAC, GAC and SSAC, will be responsible to come forward with concrete proposals to address this topic. EPDP Team Feedback: * For the second topic, common definitions are necessary, as terms such as “unique” and “anonymized” may mean different things to different people in this context. b. Timing * Per the GNSO Council’s instructions, “[a]t the latest 3 months after reconvening, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will report back to the GNSO Council on the status of deliberations. Based on this report, which is expected to include an update on progress made and the expected likelihood of consensus recommendations, the GNSO Council will decide on next steps, which could include providing additional time for the EPDP to finalize its recommendations or termination of the EPDP if it is clear that no progress is being made or consensus is unlikely”. * The first part of the instruction is time bound, recognizing that these both of these topics have been deliberated in the past, and there's been questions of whether consensus was achievable on these; therefore, the Council proposed three months. * Following the PDP 3.0 implementations, the GNSO Council has taken a more project-management focused approach to PDP management. Accordingly, you’ll see the 31 March milestone, which represents the 3-month marker Phase 2A has been given. * At the end of March will be when the chair and council liaison are to report back to the Council on the EPDP Team’s progress and chances for recommendations receiving broad support. * As in Phase 1 and Phase 2, the Policy Support Team will be working in parallel to construct an initial report in line with the Team’s deliberations and preliminary agreements. * Takeaway: eyes on the prize is end of March 2021. 5. Background Briefing Documents (20 minutes) a. Legal vs. natural: EPDP Team feedback, especially on proposed approach and estimated timing * Section A of both briefing documents provide the questions the EPDP Team was asked by the GNSO Council to address * For example, for legal v. natural, the questions to answer are: * 1. 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“); * 2. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. * The background briefing also provides the required reading materials for each topic. For legal v. natural, all EPDP Team members are required to read: * 1. the study undertaken by ICANN org (as requested by the EPDP Team and approved by the GNSO Council during Phase 1); and * 2. the legal guidance provided by Bird & Bird; and * 3. the substantive input provided on this topic during the public comment forum on the addendum and answer: * Note: EPDP Team members also suggest reading the new proposal<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposal-directive-measures-high-common-level-cybersecurity-across-union> for a revised Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems (NIS 2 Directive) 1. Feasibility of Unique Anonymized Contacts * Questions to answer: * 1. Whether or not unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address is feasible, and if feasible, whether it should be a requirement. * 2. If feasible, but not a requirement, what guidance, if any, can be provided to Contracted Parties who may want to implement uniform anonymized email addresses. * Materials to review: * Legal guidance from B&B, and following review, consider specific proposals that provide sufficient safeguards to address issues flagged in the legal memo. Groups that requested additional time to consider this topic, which include ALAC, GAC and SSAC, will be responsible to come forward with concrete proposals to address this topic. 6. Homework assignments (15 min) a. EPDP Team to review all materials referenced in the background briefings b. Staff support team to circulate links to google docs where EPDP Team members are expected to provide input on: · Legal vs. natural: i. Identify any clarifying questions in relation to legal/natural study and legal memos ii. Review ICANN org study, legal memos and any other information deemed relevant and provide input on what guidance can be provided to Registrars and Registries who differentiate or want to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. · Feasibility of unique contacts: i. Identify any clarifying questions in relation to legal memo ii. Review legal memo and any other information deemed relevant and provide input on what options to require unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address across domain name registrations would not result in being treated as publication of personal data. IMPORTANT: Due date for input – Monday 11 January 2021. Subsequent meetings will focus on input that is provided by EPDP Team members. If no input is provided, no further discussion can take place. 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. Meeting #02 Thursday 14 January at 14.00 UTC. b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any