Hi Matt, It is not quite that simple, at least from my point of view. Some of these issues were not at all clear until we carefully made our way through the document and looked at the final wording and had a chance to confer with our groups (and in my case a death in the family caused me to miss a meeting). As examples: - some of us thought the geographic differentiation was deferred to Phase 2 and were rather surprised to find it was just off the table. - the lack of known timelines on issues such as the Organization Field or the commitment to display fields at a registrant's request does not lead to a feeling of comfort. - On Access, some of us were very clear that we needed not only a maximum time-to-respond but a metric that would convey the norm and reasonably set expectations. That was not addressed in the final wording we saw (note that Rec #18 is still pending ratification). - You are correct that we agreed to Purpose 2, but it was not until we saw the final report that the lack of any consideration of things (or in most cases even mention of) like cybercrime, consumer protection and DNS-abuse became clear. It does not bode well for Phase 2. - Although not mentioned by Margie, one of the ALAC's points falls in the same category - no requirement for a registrar to collect Tech fields. Given that the EPDP was split on the issue, I assumed that we would accept the status quo (since we could not agree to a change), but found what was written was just the opposite. I feel the points raised in Margie's message are reasonable and am awaiting confirmation from the ALAC about whether they are widely supported. Alan At 17/02/2019 07:21 PM, Matt Serlin wrote: Thanks Margie for sending this over and I appreciate the time that I’m sure was put into this. I have a few initial comments but let me be clear these are my own personal comments and not those of the RrSG. While I appreciate (and even personally agree with many of the “minor amendments” you have put forth, I strongly object to the manner in which they have been put forth. The reality is that this group of volunteers have spent thousands of hours discussing and debating these very issues. Everyone had the opportunity to have their views heard and I recall many of these points being discussed among the group, so I don’t believe anyone’s voice was silenced in the process. The fact that not every group’s views were accepted and included in the report is how it should work in this multi-stakeholder model that we have. If every group had the expectation of always getting their way, how could this possible be successful? Take the discussion of the organization field as an example�contracted parties started off with a position of reddaction while other groups started with full display. After lengthy discussion and debate, everyone compromised, and we ended up with something in the middle. I pointed to that very issue the other day in describing our work to the broader RrSG team as a successful outcome in the process. How would other groups feel if now we can back and said, “actually for us to sign off on this report, we need to go back to full redaction of the organization field�” I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but what’s to stop every other group from now putting forth their “minor amendments” in order to support the full report. To be clear, I am not speaking for the RrSG and my comments are in no way a reflection of my views on the substance of your points. I’m simply disappointed we have come this far and are so close to a milestone only to seemingly have our entire body of work held hostage. I’m also unsure of how we move forward�you’ve indicated yyou look forward to “constructive engagement” yet you’re clear that your support is contingent on your five amendments. Apologies for the rant, but thank you for your willingness to read this far ☺ Best regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com> Date: Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 10:29 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

Matt and all: The most concerning part of the BC comments concerns Purpose 2. I think it is a slap in the face to those of us sincerely working towards a consensus outcome. I probably don’t need to remind you how long we have debated that specific purpose. It was clear in Toronto that no less than 3 entire Stakeholder Groups (RRSG, RYSG and NCSG) did not think it was a valid purpose at all. In the public comment period it obtained the least amount of support of all listed purposes. And yet we bent over backwards to try to accommodate the concerns of BC, IPC by arriving at an acceptable formulation of it. Even when it was clear we had overwhelming support for the current formulation of Purpose 2, we were required to add footnotes dictated in their entirely by BC and IPC that some of our members find quite objectionable. And now, after all that, they say they can’t accept it unless it is reworded in a way that they KNOW is unacceptable to other SGs – a formulation that was discarded as long ago as the September face to face meeting. This is not “constructive engagement,” folks. Put directly, BC needs to withdraw those comments if it is serious about reaching a consensus. Any modification of Purpose 2 as currently formulated would trigger a reciprocal withdrawal of support from NCSG for sure, and in all likelihood the CPH as well. I guess you like the temp spec so much, or perhaps you are quite comfortable with the permanent absence of a policy, because if these tactics are continued that is exactly where we will end up. As Matt stated, “what’s to stop every other group from now putting forth their “minor amendments” in order to support the full report?” Review our (NCSG) comments and get a listing of all the things we don’t like. But we accept the need for a policy and for compromise. Let’s see BC, IPC and ALAC rise to the occasion and show some statesmanship. Everyone has given up a lot of what they want to get here. --MM From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matt Serlin Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:22 PM To: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Thanks Margie for sending this over and I appreciate the time that I’m sure was put into this. I have a few initial comments but let me be clear these are my own personal comments and not those of the RrSG. While I appreciate (and even personally agree with many of the “minor amendments” you have put forth, I strongly object to the manner in which they have been put forth. The reality is that this group of volunteers have spent thousands of hours discussing and debating these very issues. Everyone had the opportunity to have their views heard and I recall many of these points being discussed among the group, so I don’t believe anyone’s voice was silenced in the process. The fact that not every group’s views were accepted and included in the report is how it should work in this multi-stakeholder model that we have. If every group had the expectation of always getting their way, how could this possible be successful? Take the discussion of the organization field as an example…contracted parties started off with a position of redaction while other groups started with full display. After lengthy discussion and debate, everyone compromised, and we ended up with something in the middle. I pointed to that very issue the other day in describing our work to the broader RrSG team as a successful outcome in the process. How would other groups feel if now we can back and said, “actually for us to sign off on this report, we need to go back to full redaction of the organization field…” I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but what’s to stop every other group from now putting forth their “minor amendments” in order to support the full report. To be clear, I am not speaking for the RrSG and my comments are in no way a reflection of my views on the substance of your points. I’m simply disappointed we have come this far and are so close to a milestone only to seemingly have our entire body of work held hostage. I’m also unsure of how we move forward…you’ve indicated you look forward to “constructive engagement” yet you’re clear that your support is contingent on your five amendments. Apologies for the rant, but thank you for your willingness to read this far ☺ Best regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> Date: Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 10:29 AM 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] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP