Dear All, Please find below the proposed list of topics for review and discussion during today’s EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting. Note that any items not covered during the call will carry over to the next meeting. If there are any further topics that should be considered, please share those with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika EPDP Phase 2 Small Team meeting - Proposed topics for review & discussion 1. Feedback from ICANN org in relation to logging of requests to non-participating registrars “the WHOIS Disclosure System could log requests that are made for data pertaining to domain name registrations that are under the management of non-participating registrars. A report could be created on the number of requests for domains from non-participating registrars and which registrars are receiving these requests, as part of the overall reports issued on the use of the WHOIS Disclosure System”. Note, ICANN org is still working on a response to the question from the small team whether it would also be possible to allow the requestor to continue filling out the data request form, if the requestor chooses to do so after having been informed that the data request will NOT be forwarded to the non-participating registrar and that any information provided will be used for data collection purposes that are intended to help inform future decisions about how to proceed with the Whois Disclosure System / SSAD. 1. Remaining topics put forward by Steve Crocker: * Agreements - We’d like to see the text the requesters and registrars will have to agree to when they sign up to participate in the system. This question was probably misunderstood when asked in the last session. We are not asking what agreements each registrar will require of a requester regarding a specific request. We are only asking to see ICANN’s requirements on the users of the Whois Disclosure system. Note, feedback during the informal meeting suggested that work on agreements would only start after green light has been provided to move forward with the implementation of WDS. * Requester-Registrar Communications - The specification is silent regarding the means for the registrar to return its response to the requester. Note, the design paper indicates that “registrar provides the requested data to requestor outside the system” and “The system will not provide a mechanism for the requestor and registrar to communicate or verify information. Each registrar will choose their communication channel, processes, and method of delivery”. * Change name - The name is misleading. A better name is DNS Registrar Data Request System. * Future planning - Initiation of parallel activities involving accreditation, etc. Note, the design paper confirms that WDS “does not include central or governmental accreditation authorities” and “does not include accreditation of the requestors”. 1. Remaining review template topics for discussion: * Data expected to be collected through the Whois Disclosure System * If support for proceeding: * What are the small team’s expectations with regards to the timing of implementation? * What role, if any, is the Council / small team expected to play during implementation? * How and by whom should review of the data obtained be conducted? Should this be done jointly with the ICANN Board? * Does the original timing of check-points still apply? * How can the GNSO Council/small team contribute to the success of the Whois Disclosure System? * If no support for proceeding: * What is the rationale for not proceeding? * What should the Council recommend to the Board in relation to the next step on the consideration of the SSAD recommendations?