Reminder, please provide your input on the WDS review template (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tnwab_egkFklsfxmrSV6Ii4as13gKFsE/edit), including the new entry in relation to data expected to be gathered (see under question 2, page 4) before tomorrow’s EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, 22 September 2022 at 13:04
To: "gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org" <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] High level notes from today's informal meeting & proposed timeline

Dear All,

Please find below some high level notes from today’s informal EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting. If we left anything important out or there is something else you would like to emphasize, feel free to respond on the mailing list.

Note that the staff team has already gone ahead and created a place in the google doc [docs.google.com] for the small team to work on the list of data that is expected to be collected through the Whois Disclosure System (see under question 2, page 4). The starter list provided by Paul is already there.

As agreed, the staff support team worked with Sebastien on the following proposed next steps & timeline:

Proposed schedule and next steps:

• 27 September - EPDP Phase 2 small team members to provide their input on the WDS review template, including the new entry in relation to data to expected to be gathered.
• 28 September - EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting to review input received on WDS review template and work on small team responses to WDS review template questions
• 3 October - EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting to continue review
• 5 October - EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting to continue review
• 10 October – EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting to finalize EPDP Phase 2 small team responses to WSD review template and submit to GNSO Council OR submit placeholder responses
• 10-20 October – if needed, continue EPDP Phase 2 team deliberations / meetings with the aim of finalizing responses to WDS review template
• 20 October - GNSO Council to consider EPDP Phase 2 small team review of WDS and recommendations for next steps.
• Note, if it turns out not to be feasible to submit the small team’s response in time for consideration by the Council at its October meeting, the next opportunity would be the November meeting (17 November) with a document deadline of 7 November.

Please feel free to share any further comments or questions you have with the mailing list and make sure to add your substantive input to the google doc.

Best regards,

Marika

High level notes – informal EPDP Phase 2 small team meeting with ICANN org to further discuss the Whois Disclosure System design paper

22 September 2022

On 22 September 2022, a number of EPDP Phase 2 small team members met, in person as well as virtually, to further discuss the Whois Disclosure System (WDS) with the participation of a number of ICANN org WDS project team members. These are high level notes that aim to capture the discussion – if small team members want to add to this, please feel free to respond on the mailing list. The chat transcript has already been circulated to the mailing list.

• Those EPDP Phase 2 small team members participating in the meeting agreed that it would be important to log requests that are made for data pertaining to domain name registrations that are under the management of non-participating registrars. Some also expressed the desire to have such requests sent via email to non-participating registrars, while others indicated they did not support this noting the voluntary nature of the system. It was suggested that it could be further explored that instead of emailing the request, a notification could be sent to non-participating registrars that would alert them to the fact that someone tried to submit a request from a domain name under their management and provide the non-participating registrar with further details on how they could sign up to receive future requests made via WDS.
• ICANN org confirmed that logging requests that are made for data pertaining to domain name registrations that are under the management of non-participating registrars would be possible and not a complicated addition, but it made clear that the only information that would be logged would be the domain name for which the request was made and the name of the non-participating registrar. It was highlighted that there are concerns about requesting requestors for further information if it is already known in advance that the request would not be forwarded as the registrar in question did decide not to participate. In addition, it was pointed out that there are significant concerns from the perspective of security, data minimization as well as privacy if such information would be forwarded on via email.
• It was confirmed that if a requestor requests data for a domain name registration that is under the management of the non-participating registrar, the requestor would receive an immediate notification that the registrar for that domain name is not participating in the system and that the requestor would need to approach the non-participating registrar directly. It would not be possible for the requestor to fill out the intake form in this case, but some suggested that further consideration could be given to this approach.
• It was suggested that it would be helpful in those circumstances that the requestor is given the option to fill out the intake form to then create a downloadable version that could be used by the requestor to submit their request directly to the non-participating registrar.
• Some flagged the importance of having an Application Programming Interface (API) available at the outset, both for requestors as well as participating registrars. ICANN org pointed out that this would add additional complexity and costs, and suggested that a possible approach could be to set a threshold by which, if the success of the system is demonstrated & confirmed, APIs would be developed.
• It was noted that encourage participation by Law Enforcement of the WDS, some level of confidentiality might be needed / expected.
• The small team was reminded to keep in mind what the WDS is expected to do – it is intended to be a proof of concept to gather further information to help inform if/how to proceed with the SSAD recommendations. It is NOT a replacement for SSAD. As a result, the focus of the small team should be on determining whether the design as presented is a viable options and what the key performance indicators (KPIs) are expected to be. It needs to be kept in mind that any requested additions will likely add to the complexity and costs of WDS. Furthermore, the unavailability of certain features in WDS is not a determining factor for what may or may not to be available in a future system or modified version WDS, but the determination of what is necessary needs to be informed by the WDS experience. 
• The importance of encouraging registrar as well as requestor participation to the success of the system was also pointed out. It was indicated that it would be helpful to develop and/or make materials available that would help communicating about the purpose as well as expected benefits of this system. It was noted that further conversations with the RrSG were already being planned and that based on that conversation further feedback would be provided on the perceived interest of registrars to participate in WDS.
• To facilitate consideration by the small team, the staff support team was requested to add an entry to the google doc to allow for further input on the data that would be expected to gather. A start list was provided during the meeting, namely:

1. How many requests are made. 
2. How many of those requests are made to registrars who are not participating. 
3. How many of those requests are made to registrars who are participating.
4. Response rate by participating registrars to such requests. 
5. Response rate in which the participating registrars disclosed the registrant information.
6. Response rate in which the participating registrars did not disclose the registrant information. 
7. Adoption trends for registrars. 
8. Adoption trends for unique requestors. 

• Those present also discussed the expected next steps and timeline. It was noted that the document deadline (10 October) for the upcoming Council meeting (20 October) might be tight, but a possible approach could be for the small team to work towards this deadline to see how far the small team would get, with the ability to adjust the timeline if needed. The question was also raised in relation to the formality of the response expected by the ICANN Board – would this be in the form of a resolution or in the form of a letter. Sebastien indicated that he would reach out to Becky to see if there is a specific expectation from the ICANN Board in this regard (completed).