For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report
Dear All, As discussed, please find a first draft of the EPDP Phase 2 small team addendum to the preliminary report for your review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uj8jWtcKwzS4swLCGNKIU5JBMT9Paij-/edit. You are encouraged to add any comments and/or proposed edits you have in the form of comments. Please review this in advance of the next meeting of the small team which is scheduled for Monday 10 October at 14.00 UTC. You are especially encouraged to provide your input on question 3 which does not have any content at this stage. Best regards, Marika
Hi Marika, I left some comments in the doc, but from a RrSG perspective there still some gating questions that I think must be answered before we are able to recommend yes or no. They are: 1. Can the email notifying a registrar of a request contain all the information required to act upon the request if the requestor consents to such information being emailed to the registrar? (in other words, can we allow the registrar to process the request without the operational overhead of having to log into the NSP?) 2. Can registrars log into the NSP on a certain cadence (e.g., monthly) to update the status requests? (thereby reducing operational overhead) 3. Can registrars opt-out of the service after opting-in if they face operational issues? I understand the urgency here, but I think further discussion may be required before a determinative vote. Especially given that registrar participation is crucial to the success of this pilot and as it stands, registrars are still unclear what the operational overhead would look like. Thanks, Greg From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2022 10:15 AM To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, As discussed, please find a first draft of the EPDP Phase 2 small team addendum to the preliminary report for your review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uj8jWtcKwzS4swLCGNKIU5JBMT9Paij-/edit. You are encouraged to add any comments and/or proposed edits you have in the form of comments. Please review this in advance of the next meeting of the small team which is scheduled for Monday 10 October at 14.00 UTC. You are especially encouraged to provide your input on question 3 which does not have any content at this stage. Best regards, Marika
All, Thank you Marika for sending out the link and getting the report started. I spent a little bit of time thinking about the reporting requirements we are asking for (section 2). Using the list from the document as a starting point, I tried to flush out the report a little more and came up with the following: * Number of registrars participating (total): * Number of new participating registrars (current reporting period): * Number of requestors (total): * Number of new requestors (current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests (total and current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests by priority (total and current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests by requestor type (LEA, IP, Cybersecurity, etc) (total and current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests broken out by participating and non-participating registrars (total and current reporting period): * Number of open disclosure requests (total): * Number of closed disclosure requests (total and current reporting period): * Number of closed disclosure requests by type (approved, partial approval, rejected, etc), (total and current reporting period): * Average disclosure request response time (total and current reporting period): I think it makes sense to ask for this report on a monthly basis. That would be a useful interval for viewing trends and building in natural checkpoints for the small team to monitor and review. If its useful I could drop this list into the google document, but I wanted to start the conversation here on the mailing list. Its important that we flush out the reporting requirements as this is the data we would use to evaluate the success or failure of the proof of concept and determine next steps, if we decide to proceed. Thank you, Marc From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 1:15 PM To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, As discussed, please find a first draft of the EPDP Phase 2 small team addendum to the preliminary report for your review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uj8jWtcKwzS4swLCGNKIU5JBMT9Paij-/edit. You are encouraged to add any comments and/or proposed edits you have in the form of comments. Please review this in advance of the next meeting of the small team which is scheduled for Monday 10 October at 14.00 UTC. You are especially encouraged to provide your input on question 3 which does not have any content at this stage. Best regards, Marika
Thanks Marc! I will ponder if there is anything else to add, but really appreciate this leaping off point for all of us. Taft / Paul D. McGrady, Jr. Partner PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Dir: 312.836.4094 | Cell: 312.882.5020 Tel: 312.527.4000 | Fax: 312.754.2354 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Download vCard<http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> [https://taftlawpr.blob.core.windows.net/taft/files/fileuploads/62f506bb609f40002f521357/Taft%20Jaffe%20Logo%20-%20Signature%20Block-02.png]<https://taftlawpr.blob.core.windows.net/taft/files/fileuploads/62f506bb609f40002f521357/Taft%20Jaffe%20Logo%20-%20Signature%20Block-02.png> Jaffe is joining Taft, effective Dec 31, 2022. Learn more here.<https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/taft-expands-midwest-reach-and-capa...> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc via GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 4:10 PM To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report All, Thank you Marika for sending out the link and getting the report started. I spent a little bit of time thinking about the reporting requirements we are asking for (section 2). Using the list from the document as a starting point, I tried to flush out the report a little mor [https://alert-dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_security_warning_fetch?r=1&dep=Z61P3kRMG2yjXlE2ncu6dQ%3D%3D4BUoeCNSjfsx3Z7DVEH%2Bkw35e8c4H2BuTfB0De%2BMpRrs1efGsYOdXUeRFIwt%2FD5YWATJ%2BvVY3nBwQi9GOZQOkSU5z4FTPh6QpaiIkDFwf9BikcQ37UKA31ETA2xXJI%2FUYu%2FEo69I1WGUzK%2BjFkLhyA7PA8NPGlz254DBqRhcVcnW7DCuN3WinTwwjDA8laEW7OmVENgJVA%2Fwe15y80W9x5cXigi8EC3Ypev1l%2FurNRJa5HXRCr9S%2FzS0F91ok%2FK5e2FaC5u6XjRZ%2FgN9UFlhJaQAqQW6zlaTWrSDZhsSNRteR21w%2BIz3Otq%2BsgA1Phd%2BvTqLY21rz579lD9voYIVt9wrtrGmRf5x4GZLW9mHDzFRKjamOGQD1HSp8riJLgIfH%2B07v5IyEpTnOOSjEnn%2FEdgBZhgls9HV6%2BfVYtJA9t96FSESG91Vd%2BmCf1c%2BfMe5jE3IMs7gct4MP%2FCjXqOjcAnEUbsyBy2u0MNq6eaz28aZshOLuKxn9E%2FVZ%2BHAfV6SO4eHjM2YspsnGBchz0vRpvIH7SPq%2BF5ARnm0K9y%2BBQWpxhrdVYjae5%2FFwVf9S8a6RaSEGSgqEU%2BpocIBMkgr7%2BEPn9fuA2IngbadShfMbZFjQW5fatoDN3x7Cjj%2F1bto5XQDWFVMKIPfvbi%2Fbvk1yN0AE9jOQ0oDR8Ibngq%2FRCLBk6u7ssf9ChHQuESVdWy6zth6j4zkDCnHuiQClCEYA31vT1bMuEcNrbPlH1ncr6kjdTX7bHq%2FDtWX6sT%2FapQM]<https://us.report.cybergraph.mimecast.com/alert-details/?dep=Z61P3kRMG2yjXlE2ncu6dQ%3D%3D4BUoeCNSjfsx3Z7DVEH%2Bkw35e8c4H2BuTfB0De%2BMpRrs1efGsYOdXUeRFIwt%2FD5YWATJ%2BvVY3nBwQi9GOZQOkSU5z4FTPh6QpaiIkDFwf9BikcQ37UKA31ETA2xXJI%2FUYu%2FEo69I1WGUzK%2BjFkLhyA7PA8NPGlz254DBqRhcVcnW7DCuN3WinTwwjDA8laEW7OmVENgJVA%2Fwe15y80W9x5cXigi8EC3Ypev1l%2FurNRJa5HXRCr9S%2FzS0F91ok%2FK5e2FaC5u6XjRZ%2FgN9UFlhJaQAqQW6zlaTWrSDZhsSNRteR21w%2BIz3Otq%2BsgA1Phd%2BvTqLY21rz579lD9voYIVt9wrtrGmRf5x4GZLW9mHDzFRKjamOGQD1HSp8riJLgIfH%2B07v5IyEpTnOOSjEnn%2FEdgBZhgls9HV6%2BfVYtJA9t96FSESG91Vd%2BmCf1c%2BfMe5jE3IMs7gct4MP%2FCjXqOjcAnEUbsyBy2u0MNq6eaz28aZshOLuKxn9E%2FVZ%2BHAfV6SO4eHjM2YspsnGBchz0vRpvIH7SPq%2BF5ARnm0K9y%2BBQWpxhrdVYjae5%2FFwVf9S8a6RaSEGSgqEU%2BpocIBMkgr7%2BEPn9fuA2IngbadShfMbZFjQW5fatoDN3x7Cjj%2F1bto5XQDWFVMKIPfvbi%2Fbvk1yN0AE9jOQ0oDR8Ibngq%2FRCLBk6u7ssf9ChHQuESVdWy6zth6j4zkDCnHuiQClCEYA31vT1bMuEcNrbPlH1ncr6kjdTX7bHq%2FDtWX6sT%2FapQM> All, Thank you Marika for sending out the link and getting the report started. I spent a little bit of time thinking about the reporting requirements we are asking for (section 2). Using the list from the document as a starting point, I tried to flush out the report a little more and came up with the following: 1. Number of registrars participating (total): 2. Number of new participating registrars (current reporting period): 3. Number of requestors (total): 4. Number of new requestors (current reporting period): 5. Number of disclosure requests (total and current reporting period): 6. Number of disclosure requests by priority (total and current reporting period): 7. Number of disclosure requests by requestor type (LEA, IP, Cybersecurity, etc) (total and current reporting period): 8. Number of disclosure requests broken out by participating and non-participating registrars (total and current reporting period): 9. Number of open disclosure requests (total): 10. Number of closed disclosure requests (total and current reporting period): 11. Number of closed disclosure requests by type (approved, partial approval, rejected, etc), (total and current reporting period): 12. Average disclosure request response time (total and current reporting period): I think it makes sense to ask for this report on a monthly basis. That would be a useful interval for viewing trends and building in natural checkpoints for the small team to monitor and review. If its useful I could drop this list into the google document, but I wanted to start the conversation here on the mailing list. Its important that we flush out the reporting requirements as this is the data we would use to evaluate the success or failure of the proof of concept and determine next steps, if we decide to proceed. Thank you, Marc From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 1:15 PM To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, As discussed, please find a first draft of the EPDP Phase 2 small team addendum to the preliminary report for your review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uj8jWtcKwzS4swLCGNKIU5JBMT9Paij-/edit. You are encouraged to add any comments and/or proposed edits you have in the form of comments. Please review this in advance of the next meeting of the small team which is scheduled for Monday 10 October at 14.00 UTC. You are especially encouraged to provide your input on question 3 which does not have any content at this stage. Best regards, Marika
Hi Team- one other concern I need to raise is that the Monday meeting will take place before the second webinar on Oct 11, 2022 01:00 AM in Universal Time UTC. I know my registrar colleagues in different time zones (particularly APAC) will be attending this session, and their feedback is necessary before registrars can reach consensus on whether we can move forward with a motion in the next council meeting. Thanks, Greg From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc via GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2022 2:10 PM To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. All, Thank you Marika for sending out the link and getting the report started. I spent a little bit of time thinking about the reporting requirements we are asking for (section 2). Using the list from the document as a starting point, I tried to flush out the report a little more and came up with the following: * Number of registrars participating (total): * Number of new participating registrars (current reporting period): * Number of requestors (total): * Number of new requestors (current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests (total and current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests by priority (total and current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests by requestor type (LEA, IP, Cybersecurity, etc) (total and current reporting period): * Number of disclosure requests broken out by participating and non-participating registrars (total and current reporting period): * Number of open disclosure requests (total): * Number of closed disclosure requests (total and current reporting period): * Number of closed disclosure requests by type (approved, partial approval, rejected, etc), (total and current reporting period): * Average disclosure request response time (total and current reporting period): I think it makes sense to ask for this report on a monthly basis. That would be a useful interval for viewing trends and building in natural checkpoints for the small team to monitor and review. If its useful I could drop this list into the google document, but I wanted to start the conversation here on the mailing list. Its important that we flush out the reporting requirements as this is the data we would use to evaluate the success or failure of the proof of concept and determine next steps, if we decide to proceed. Thank you, Marc From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 1:15 PM To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - draft addendum to preliminary report Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, As discussed, please find a first draft of the EPDP Phase 2 small team addendum to the preliminary report for your review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uj8jWtcKwzS4swLCGNKIU5JBMT9Paij-/edit. You are encouraged to add any comments and/or proposed edits you have in the form of comments. Please review this in advance of the next meeting of the small team which is scheduled for Monday 10 October at 14.00 UTC. You are especially encouraged to provide your input on question 3 which does not have any content at this stage. Best regards, Marika
participants (4)
-
Anderson, Marc -
DiBiase, Gregory -
Marika Konings -
McGrady, Jr., Paul D.