Hi All, We still have a healthy list of action items that need everyone's attention. I know we're nearing the holidays and this message may not garner much response, but it will make all our lives much easier if each team member takes 30 mins to an hour between now and Friday to address any items that they are responsible for, or if they see an unaddressed item, to tackle it. More specifically, subgroups should also look at their individual report sections and see if there are any questions I have left for them. Please review the action items below. To stay on schedule, please confirm that you've received this message as soon as possible. Thank you, Jackie ----------------------------------------- Level of priorities Action item: Define priority level for each recommendation with some quick description. E.g. High, to be implemented by… Action item: Include brief statement that refers to timing envisioned for recommendations while highlighting some of the dependencies. Agreement to consider the six-month Bylaw window in assessments. Report Action item: ALL - Reference to “The Board should negotiate …” has been used in a few places throughout the report. The RT will update this wording throughout the report consistently. Executive Summary Action item: Add section of the problems of the policy development process regarding a single RDS (WHOIS) in the Executive Summary. (based onWHOIS1 Rec #2: Single WHOIS Policy action item) Action item: RT needs to evaluate recommendation numbering, potential explanation in ES. Action item: History of WHOIS on ICANN’s website. Erika to provide Jackie with the right content/references link so introduction section can be properly updated. Background Section Action item: Alan and Jackie review and modify the WHOIS Background section (in reference to the last bullet on slide # 40 of Day # 3 of F2F meeting) WHOIS1 Rec #1: Strategic Priority (Cathrin) Decision Reached: Do a rewording/reaffirmation of strategic priority, in the implementation note: reference to stakeholders is there. Work should be interactive and Board should not act unilaterally. Action item: Since the former Board WG was dissolved, the recommendation should be reformatted to say any WG that is focusing on RDS issues should be made public and not make specific reference to a particular WG. Action item: Comments from NCSG on R1.1, R1.2 and R3.1 need to be updated to Neutral, instead of Disagreement in the public comment summary. Action item: As per Dmitry’s note, Cathrin to report for this recommendation that “legislative efforts are not enough”. WHOIS1 Rec #2: Single WHOIS Policy (Carlton) Action item: Jackie to work with Alan to mention the problems of the policy development process regarding a single RDS (WHOIS), to be placed in the Executive Summary. WHOIS1 Rec #3: Outreach (Alan) Action item: DNRC comment on section: Alan to update language. R3.1: Action item: ICANN org to change public comment of NCSG to “Neutral” if comment not already marked as such. Action item: Alan to clarify what specific improvements we are looking for. R3.2: Action item: NCSG comment: Alan to work with Jackie on rewording of the recommendations to clearly articulate the need for outreach before and after RDS changes are finalized. Action item: Add implementation note, that the RT does not have any input on ICANN budget. WHOIS1 Rec #4: Compliance (Susan) Action item: * Susan to clarify that ICANN will not go on fact-finding missions, but use the information they currently have on hand (input received). * Susan to clarify that Compliance enforces Registrars to enforce data accuracy for registrants. R4.1 Action item: Volker to provide language to update recommendation 4.1 based on RrSG and NCSG comments. Action item: Susan to delete the portion of the recommendation that refers to sanctions and make a reference to it in the report text. R4.2 Action item: Volker and Alan work on rewording R4.2 and add some metrics in for measurability and success of implementation. WHOIS1 Recs #5-9: Data Accuracy (Lili/Cathrin) R5.1: Action item: Lili & Cathrin to rewrite recommendation. It is conceivable that the recommendation could be removed or replaced with a different one. Consider changing the recommendation to say “ARS” (or some sort of accuracy-reporting system) must continue, even post-GDPR because the then-users of the data will want accuracy of data available to them. (There must be some level of contactability/accuracy of the data and we must consider the resources of Compliance) Action item: Lili and Cathrin to add a bookmark “if indeed it is conceivable that the outcome of ePDP is that the work that Compliance does today becomes more complex than it currently is, compliance must be properly resourced to do its job.” Wording to be discussed. Action item: ICANN org to double-check the recommendation numbering to ensure comment was in response to recommendation 5-9 and adjust as needed. Action item: (RrSG comment) Cathrin to review this section of the report and consider rewording as needed. Cathrin to provide Jackie with the correct references. Cathrin to insert the references in the PC document as well. WHOIS1 Rec #10: Privacy/Proxy Services (Volker) R10.1 Action item: Recommendation stands but Volker needs to make sure wording is clear. WHOIS1 Rec #11: Common Interface (Susan/Volker) Action item: Susan/Volker to clarify that this recommendation was not specifically aimed at compliance. WHOIS1 Rec #12: Internationalized Domain Names (Dmitry/All) Action item: RT to review this section and recommendation and decide if changes are needed. RT needs to evaluate recommendation numbering, potential explanation in ES. Objective 3: Law Enforcement Needs (Cathrin) LE.1 Action item: MSSI to estimate number of hours spent on the LE survey in response to NCSG request for estimated cost associated with conducting the survey. Action item: Cathrin to bring this recommendation to GAC’s attention, Alan to EPDP’s Action item: Clarify what “regular” means and include rationale: 1) ex-ante impact assessment 2) evaluate new policies once there are in place. LE.2 Action item: In response to NCSG comment, Cathrin to add a clause “factoring costs/benefits analysis”. Also, reword the recommendation to define what “extend” means. New suggested text: The ICANN Board should consider to conducting comparable surveys and/or studies(as described in LE.1) to other RDS (WHOIS) users working with law enforcement on a regular basis. Objective 4: Consumer Trust (Alan/Erika) Action item: Alan and Erika to update section. Objective 5: Safeguarding Registrant Data (Alan) Action item: Alan to update recommendation: Agreement to add: “ICANN Board should consider whether and to what extent notifications of breaches should be publicly disclosed.” Action item: Alan to clarify recommendation in light of section 3.2 of the 2013 RAA Objective 6: ICANN Contractual ComplianceActions, Structure and Processes (Susan, Cathrin, Alan) Action items: CM1: Alan to reword CM.1 so that it does not say “the Board should negotiate …”. The goal is to ensure the recommendation is not dictating a PDP but suggesting a change somehow. CM2: * Alan and Volker to add more details to CM.2 to clarify the registrant fields being addressed in the recommendation. Additionally, the whole recommendation should be reworded to better convey intent. * Update as of 11 December 2018: Based on the updated recommendation and rationale language Volker provided on 11 December (Day # 2), Susan is to take the pen and update the relevant sections of the report accordingly. * Jackie to add in introduction, to the extent that their deliberations so far impact areas in our review. CM3: * Recommendation to be deleted. Add this as a more targeted outreach in the relevant recommendation. * Cathrin to clarify Board options in a footnote. CM4: * Alan to write to ICANN org Compliance and negotiate language to be added to relevant page(s). If successful, recommendation will be deleted. Objective 7: ICANN Bylaws (Carlton/Alan) BY.1 Action item: Carlton to amend the recommendation to incorporate the words “safeguarding the registrant data” and provide clarification that the suggestion is meant to postpone the topic to future reviews. ?