<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Candara;
panose-1:2 14 5 2 3 3 3 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1243100454;
mso-list-template-ids:1018743458;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif'>Agree with Rubens that no one SO/AC is more important than another.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif'>Is Susan’s suggestion 5-6 per SO/AC or SG/C? I’m confused. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:16 PM<br><b>To: </b>Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com><br><b>Cc: </b>GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [council] ePDP<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Susan,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Responses inline. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 23 May 2018, at 21:26, Susan Kawaguchi <<a href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com">susankpolicy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello All, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I have given the potential ePDP much thought over the last two days. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>To effectively do this work at the speed that it will require we need to focus the ePDP. As you all know this is a tremendous amount of work. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We need to address the following: <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Including at the very least the GAC and SSAC in this ePDP will be critical. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>While this is still a GNSO ePDP, the fact that we will likely not run an open WG means that we should invite ACs, but I don't see why some ACs would be critical and others would not. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The members of the team should be limited to 5-6 members of each SG/AC. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm more inclined to a lesser number of members per SG, and even less from ACs, perhaps one each per AC.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Each member must agree to accept the fast paced extensive work load, participating on calls, subgroups and drafting when necessary. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>And to be willing to come to common grounds... which is the only way for this effort to not fail like all others before them have. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Understand that their work is representational of the community they are affiliated with and will receive endorsement to express views. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm not sure of that; while I understand that idea, and this is how Council representation works for 3 of the 4 GNSO SGs, I'm afraid it could be not practical and hamper productivity, but I'm not ready yet to offer an alternative. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Create a leadership team with extensive knowledge and time to focus on this work. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Select a Chair that will have the time and skills to effectively manage the ePDP. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Yeap. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Include a Board member for oversight and check ins on the team. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I believe Board liaison(s) would be helpful in not causing a delay by drafting a policy Board wouldn't be able to accept, but I wouldn't call them members. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This ePDP should focus on the critical needs identified in the Annex of the Temporary Spec. first as these issues are of critical importance. (copied below for ease of reference) <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>But if the main topics are not dealt with by the ePDP, temp spec will expire and lose effect... so I would rather see the opposite: taking first the items already included in the spec, bake all the uncontroversial ones into policy and begin implementation of them ASAP. Only after that first report, deal with controversial and further community action ones. Having parallel PDP/IRT teams also seem to be needed to achieve the ambitious timeframe imposed by the temp spec framework. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Rubens<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Annex: Important Issues for Further Community Action</span><span style='font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The purpose of this Annex is to set forth implementation issues raised during the course of development of this Temporary Specification for which the ICANN Board encourages the community to continue discussing so that they may be resolved as quickly as possible after the effective date of the Temporary Specification. This Annex does not create new or modified requirements for Registrar or Registry Operator, nor is it intended to direct the scope of the Policy Development Process, which will be initiated as a result of the Board’s adoption of thisTemporary Specification.</span><span style='font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Pursuant to Section 4.4, continuing community work to develop an accreditation and access model that complies with GDPR, while recognizing the need to obtain additional guidance from Article 29 Working Party/European Data Protection Board.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Addressing the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address across domain name registrations at a given Registrar, while ensuring security/stability and meeting the requirements of Section 2.5.1 of Appendix A.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Developing methods to provide potential URS and UDRP complainants with sufficient access to Registration Data to support good-faith filings of complaints.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Consistent process for continued access to Registration Data, including non- public data, for users with a legitimate purpose, until the time when a final accreditation and access mechanism is fully operational, on a mandatory basis for all contracted parties.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Distinguishing between legal and natural persons to allow for public access to the Registration Data of legal persons, which are not in the remit of the GDPR.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Limitations in terms of query volume envisaged under an accreditation program balanced against realistic investigatory cross-referencing needs.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Confidentiality of queries for Registration Data by law enforcement authorities.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Looking forward to discussing further tonight. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Susan Kawaguchi <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>BC Councilor. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>council mailing list<br><a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>