<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;}
/* 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
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.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@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:204606443;
mso-list-template-ids:-983762892;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1148014910;
mso-list-template-ids:-4819814;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1319456482;
mso-list-template-ids:248781720;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1655061172;
mso-list-template-ids:-1971806376;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear All, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Please find below the notes and action items from today’s Small Team A meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Marika, Berry, and Caitlin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:20.0pt;color:black'>Small Team A Meeting #1</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#767676'>Thursday, 8 January 2019</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='color:black'>Notes and Action Items</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Attendees:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Alan Greenberg (ALAC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Alan Woods (RYSG)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Ben Butler (SSAC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Diane Plaut (IPC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Emily Taylor (RrSG)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Georgios Tselentis (GAC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Julf Helsingius (NCSG)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Kurt Pritz (Chair)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Margie Milam (BC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Matt Serlin (RrSG)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:black'>Recommendations Discussed + Proposed Small Team Approach</span></u></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Recommendation #15</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Initial Report Language</span></b><span style='color:black'>: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>The EPDP recommends that for the new policy on gTLD registration data, the requirements of the Temporary Specification are maintained in relation to URS and UDRP until such time as these are superseded by recommendations from the RPMs PDP WG (if any).</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Proposed Small Team Approach</span></b><span style='color:black'>: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The Small Team considered comments by URS and UDRP Providers (PCRT #9-10), and believe they merit further discussion with the plenary team. Please see PCRT comments 9 and 10 for further detail. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Regarding comments about access to registration data for the purpose of assessing the merits of a UDRP Complaint (3, 5, 8, 11 of PCRT): The Small Team proposes to preserve these comments for the access discussion in Phase 2 - at which point the EPDP Team can decide if the concerns are appropriately within scope, and if so, how to address the concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Recommendation #18 </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Initial Report Language</span></b><span style='color:black'>: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org must enter into data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers in which, amongst other items, the data retention period is specifically addressed, as this will affect the ability to have publicly available decisions.</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'> </span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Proposed Small Team Approach</span></b><span style='color:black'>: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the Small Team proposes to remove the last clause from Rec. 18, noting it is out of scope for the EPDP Team. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The proposed updated recommendation for consideration by the EPDP Team: The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org must enter into data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers in which, amongst other items, the data retention period is specifically addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Recommendation #22</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Initial Report Language</span></b><span style='color:black'>: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements:</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>• Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Policy</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>• Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>• Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>• WHOIS Data Reminder Policy</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>• Transfer Policy</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>• Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'> </span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Proposed Small Team Approach</span></b><span style='color:black'>: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the Small Team noted it is premature to finalize the language of the recommendation at this time. The Small Team recommends the full EPDP Team revisit this language following its finalization of the Final Report to determine if the language needs to be amended, noting specifically the inclusion of administrative/technical contact may need amendment, and the list of Consensus Policies currently listed may need amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Recommendation #6</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Initial Report Language:</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>1. The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org enter into legally-compliant data</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>processing agreements with the data escrow providers.</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>2. The EPDP Team recommends updates to the contractual requirements for registries and registrars to transfer data that they process to the data escrow provider to ensure consistency with the data elements workbooks that analyze the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data.</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>3. The data elements workbook that analyzes the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data Registration Data contains the specifically-identified data elements the EPDP Team recommends be transferred by Registries and Registrars to data escrow providers (see Annex D). These data elements are: <see Initial Report>.</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Proposed Small Team Approach:</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The Small Team noted the specific data set to be transferred from the contracted party to the data escrow provider must be discussed in a plenary meeting. Following the EPDP Team’s agreement on the data set to be transferred, whether it is a full data set or a minimal data set, the EPDP Team should revisit the specific language of this recommendation, and should also include the agreed-upon data set within the text of the recommendation (instead of referencing a workbook). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Recommendation #17</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Initial Report Language:</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>The EPDP Team requests that when the EPDP Team commences its deliberations on a standardized access framework, a representative of the RPMs PDP WG shall provide an update on the current status of deliberations so that the EPDP Team may determine if/how the WG’s recommendations may affect consideration of the URS and UDRP in the context of the standardized access framework deliberations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>Proposed Small Team Approach:</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the Small Team proposes to remove Recommendation 17 as an official recommendation, as this recommendation appears to be an action item instead of a policy recommendation. Instead, the Small Team proposes to preserve the language within the body of the EPDP Team’s Final Report and ensure the request is revisited during Phase 2 of the EPDP Team’s work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:black'>Notes</span></u></b><u><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'>Thanks to all for your flexibility as we try to work together to discern the best way review the comments. The leadership appreciates the feedback on the approach.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'>Hesitant to lose a meeting as there is such limited time left before our deadline for the Final Report.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'>This approach seeks to multiply the Team's capacity by reviewing the non-controversial recommendations with smaller teams.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'>As we think about how to move forward, we have to find a high bar that would cause us to reconsider the hard-fought compromises in the Initial Report. <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'>The ultimate goal is to be thoughtful and expeditious at the same time.<o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Today's Method:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>1. Display the discussion table for the purpose/recommendation under review. (Note: the discussion table is a tool for discussion; it is not a replacement of the PCRT.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>2. 5 minutes of silent review of discussion table/PCRT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>3. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>4. Take time to highlight comments made by individuals or organizations who are not represented within the EPDP Team to ensure these voices are heard.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>5. Discussion: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>a. Does the concern warrant a change to the purpose/recommendation? If so, the concern is [rationale provided by commenter], and a proposal to address the concern is [described in the comment].<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>b. If the team does not believe the concern warrants a change to the purpose/recommendation, why not? Answer may include, but is not limited to: out of scope for this EPDP, the EPDP has previously discussed this concern in its formulation of the purpose, recommendation, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>6. Closure where possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>7. Support staff to document outcome of discussion and forward the outcomes to the full EPDP Team.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>EPDP Team feedback:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2'>Concern with this approach by the CPH: the time demand and cost of participation is raised with this approach.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2'>Coordination is very difficult in the small team approach - feel very unprepared for this discussion.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2'>We have two meetings - we need to get into the work.<o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>a. Purpose 1 - Establish the rights of a Registered Name Holder <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>b. Recommendation #15 - URS / UDRP</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>The EPDP recommends that for the new policy on gTLD registration data, the requirements of the Temporary Specification are maintained in relation to URS and UDRP until such time as these are superseded by recommendations from the RPMs PDP WG (if any).</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>You will note there was support for this recommendation across the board, but there some suggested edits provided.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Comments from URS Providers - the amendments seem practical and pragmatic - these are comments we should look to incorporate and make the suggested changes. (PCRT comments 9-10)<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Sympathetic to the claims of looking for patterns or proving patterns of bad faith/reasonable use for UDRP; however, we are not in a position to rewrite these claims but we do not have a time to do a thorough review. Question to commenters: is there something we can do, without substantially changing the process, within our scope? Then have the RPM group look into the details? Is there some level of relief we can get without going into too much detail?<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>The comment about the process being broken does merit more discussion. This is not an access issue. <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>The concern could be flagged to the RPM group or an edit put in place.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Amend paragraph 2 (URS Rules) of the Appendix D: Uniform Rapid Suspension by substituting the wording "Examiner" with "Provider". <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Amend paragraph 2 (URS Rules) of the Appendix D: Uniform Rapid Suspension and paragraph 1.2 of Appendix E: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy by substituting the wordings "Doe complaint" with "complaint against an unidentified Respondent" and adding the wording "theComplainant with" - this helps make it universal language.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Small team outcome: put forward these changes to the EPDP Team.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Second issue - registration data for UDRP complainants <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>For the reasons Alan described, it would be a complicated process to release data beforehand, and this is essentially an access discussion.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>By getting into when and how much data to disclose at this point, we are straying into access issues. Probably best to park this for now. Reverse WHOIS type of service would not be appropriate because it is not definitive whether a domain name is an abusive registration. Once data is released, there could be research on previous UDRP decisions. The number of decisions alone is not dispositive of bad faith registrations.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Providers at times may redact information from the decisions they publish. This is an access issue, but when we discuss the access, it may well be that we can recommend providing more access than the public gets. We may need to tweak some rules within the UDRP or URS. Perhaps put a placeholder here to discuss at the appropriate time.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>OK with deferring the access discussion, but the suggestion is - use it as a means of pushing it into that discussion.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>This could be considered within the EPDP or the RPM PDP WG. Is this something that needs to be flagged? EPDP can discuss this in access discussion.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>This is out of scope for this EPDP Team. What is suggested is to tweak the process to make it easier for complainants to make their case. The only this we should change at the moment is to make sure the process is compliant. The decision to disclose is up to the individual registry or registrar, not a blanket reverse WHOIS request.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>If we talk about this substantively, part of proving the UDRP is showing bad faith, which could involve patterns of abuse. The fact that the UDRP does not work now is a problem for ICANN and for the UDRP. We are talking about multiple look-ups. <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>We will propose the two small changes from the providers.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>For this discussion and the effects of GDPR and UDRP, when we discuss an access model in Phase 2, we will flag this issue. <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>When will the team have the access discussion - this would be helpful. Also note reverse WHOIS is not an ICANN policy - this is a new feature that we may agree this is outside the scope of what we're doing here.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'>Outcome: PCRT comments 3, 5, 8, 11 regarding access to registration data for the purpose of UDRP/URS filing will be preserved for the access discussion in Phase 2 - at which point the EPDP Team can decide if the concern should be addressed by the EPDP Team/how to address the concern if the Team agrees the concern is appropriately within scope.<o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>c. Recommendation #18 - Data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers (incl. Question #4)</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style='margin-top:0in' type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'><i>The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org must enter into data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers in which, amongst other items, the data retention period is specifically addressed, as this will affect the ability to have publicly available decisions.</i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Themes seem to be - eliminating clause at the end as this will affect publicly-available decisions. Another comment is eliminating recommendation as this seems to be elimination of URS and UDRP. <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Small Team Feedback:<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Once we get to the stage of a decision, the information relating to the registrant is part and parcel of that decision. To the extent there are comments relating to access, we have already disposed of those. To the extent that we would be amending URS or UDRP procedures, that is not our job. Where stakeholder groups are saying the same thing, that is compelling.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Discuss the issue raised by the Forum and George K. regarding decisions being made public.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>If you have DPA b/w ICANN and Providers, does this necessarily mean the decisions would not be public? Why is George concerned that the decision won't be public? <o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>The biggest question we need to look at: who are we trying to deal with. The publication of the decision is by the provider - this is out of scope for us. What we need to figure out more - why are we providing the data to the provider in the first place. In these questions by Tucows, Forum, George - we are missing a key concept - who is the controller? Here, it is the URS/UDRP provider - that is a matter of the contract b/w ICANN and the URS Provider.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>This is talking about an agreement b/w ICANN and providers. It looks like the comments are meant to cover other issues that may come up in the DPA.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Consider deleting the text after data retention period. The whole issue is whether decisions are public or not is not a WHOIS issue - this is an issue of how providers do their work. This seems to imply that WHOIS has a bearing on publicly-available decisions. This simply notes ICANN has to enter into data processing agreements.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Given that the issue of publicly-available decisions and redaction is a concern of many commenters, I suggest we leave it as drafted.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>As this recommendation is, we’re giving a suggestion – probably keep in mind decisions, so this is not a major issue to leave it in.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'>Outcome - Having taken careful note of all public comments received on this recommendation, the EPDP small team has decided to remove the last clause from Rec. 18 (noting it is out of scope).<o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>d. Recommendation #22 - Impact on other policies </span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>EPDP Team Preliminary Rec #22.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>recommendations as a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>• Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>• Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>• Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>• WHOIS Data Reminder Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>• Transfer Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>• Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Should we include the PPSAI policy, AWIP, and ERRP? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>From the comments and text, better to postpone this recommendation and possibly add to final report as we are still evolving and shouldn’t have a laundry list of policies that need to be updated that are not there.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Addition of the PPSAI policy request – this is something that we need to be clear about, so this should be reviewed within the plenary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>This recommendation should stay in the books and in the Final Report, but it shouldn’t be finalized right now as the team is still working. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Could we recommend to the larger group that the part re: admin/tech be eliminated at this time?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Proposed outcome: this team discussed removing the clause at the end “as a number of these” and this group discussed and generally supported the inclusion of PPSAI <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Is this work for an implementation review team, or is this work for the GNSO? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>e. Recommendation #6 - Escrow Providers</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>EPDP Team Preliminary Rec #6:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>1. The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN Org enter into legally-compliant data<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>processing agreements with the data escrow providers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>2. The EPDP Team recommends updates to the contractual requirements for registries and registrars to transfer data that they process to the data escrow provider to ensure consistency with the data elements workbooks that analyze the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>3. The data elements workbook that analyzes the purpose to provide mechanisms for safeguarding Registered Name Holders' Registration Data Registration Data contains the specifically-identified data elements the EPDP Team recommends be transferred by Registries and Registrars to data escrow providers (see Annex D). These data elements are: <see Initial Report>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>One major issue is lack of in-depth review of data elements workbooks. We may consider putting this onto the face-to-face agenda. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>What is the best way to do this? Is there a way to use a small team, for example?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Perhaps allocate homework to individuals – go through the easy ones first.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Task: did we learn anything new from the comments? No – these are the predictable positions we have heard from the stakeholder groups all along. We discussed this in BCN, but we did not reach an agreement. There doesn’t seem to be much new in the public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Regarding what information is provided to the data escrow provider – BC recommended all data except specific TLD data should be provided to the escrow provider.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>This could come out of the data mapping Alan G discussed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Most people agree data escrow that all data or minimal data set is copied. If we come to the agreement that which data is necessary for the processing activity, then there is not a problem with the recommendation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Where we are: The exercise of determining the data flows and specific data set are necessary. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Recommendation 6 is agreed to by everyone, but the specific data set needs to be agreed to by the EPDP Team. Other proposed edits to the language can be assessed following plenary review of the data set. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>f. Recommendation #12 - Reasonable access<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>g. Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>h. Recommendation #17 - Input from RPM PDP WG to inform subsequent access discussion<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>EPDP Team Preliminary Rec #17.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The EPDP Team requests that when the EPDP Team commences its deliberations on a standardized access framework, a representative of the RPMs PDP WG shall provide an update on the current status of deliberations so that the EPDP Team may determine if/how the WG’s recommendations may affect consideration of the URS and UDRP in the context of the standardized access framework deliberations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Potential items for discussion – UDRP providers should be included in this consultation, is this an action item rather than a policy recommendation?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>This is an action item and not a policy recommendation. Suggestion – delete this as a recommendation but include as an action item in Phase 2 of the work. If WIPO would like to be included on the EPDP Team, this needs to go to the GNSO Council. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Where is the appropriate place for this? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Perhaps see how this could potentially be included in the Final Report, but not specifically as a policy recommendation. Consider including this in the body of the Final Report, but not include as a specific policy recommendation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>