<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:12.0pt;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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:1184199515;
mso-list-template-ids:1809363504;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>EPDP Meeting #47<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>20 February 2019<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>High-level Notes/Actions</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The Support Team will send a clean and red-lined version of the Final Report to the Team and the GNSO Council shortly.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Notes & Action items</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ.</span></i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>1. Roll Call & SOI Updates</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>2. Discussion of items for amendment and final discussion:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· If there is not broad support for a change, we will move on to the next item.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· There seemed to be rough consensus around 30 days for disclosure requests for rec. 18.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· 30 days may be acceptable, but a substantially shorter timeline will apply for urgent disclosure requests</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· It doesn't make sense to have a contractual requirement without knowing the volume of requests that will come in.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· There could be a scheme that is developed later about how to deal with this. To attach a number at this stage in the game is premature because the number we pick is likely wrong.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Addressing this later does not address the bad actors.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· There needs to be a way to block unreasonable requests.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The language that registrars must respond reasonably helps solve the concern with bad actors.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>The language proposed by Thomas would be acceptable.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>e. Recommendation 9 – Contractual Compliance – consider clarification (30 minutes)</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Add "if needed" to the recommendation and note the current language in the contracts addresses this already.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· This change may not fully address the RySG comments.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· From a Ry perspective, the group looked at the Charter question, specifically e1. The contract language is fine as is and does not require any changes.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The footnote for Rec. 9 notes the request must be narrowly-tailored to meet the request.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· It may be important to keep the data set provided by Compliance in the recommendation. Why is OK to eliminate this?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The existing contracts do not have this enumerated, so why is this enumerated in the report? The data elements are out of place here.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· If this is a full list, why does it need to be delineated?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Is it OK with everyone to delete the table, retain the footnote and note what Alan G. just said?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Concerning registration data elements - ry and rrs are required to transmit to ICANN org any WHOIS elements that are requested for Purpose 5.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Add a note, "it doesn't preclude CC from getting other data that are in the compliance processing activities doc"</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>f. Recommendation 12 – Organization field – consider clarification (30 minutes)</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Clarification offered by Rrs/Rys to show the org phase-in approach is a registrar obligation, and for registries to publish is optional.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Will registries publish the org field once the phase-in period is complete?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Getting consent requires flags for getting consent and flags for withdrawal of consent. This seems complicated for registries to know if the requisite consent was given.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Transfer of consent is not a simple issue. It's a technical challenge as well as a GDPR challenge.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Registry has to decide or not whether it wants the data, and this is based on risk.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· There is not thin or thick at this point; rather, an aggregate minimum data set. Having it and using it for a justified purpose is different than publishing it.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Consent is not mentioned in the implementation advice.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Once we figure out who to transfer consent, then info will get transmitted to the registries</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Who is the authoritative source, the registry or the registrar?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· It might be best to say the registrar is the authoritative source here.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· When we say something is only available at the registrar, once we figure out how to transfer consent, it should apply to all of those fields.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Proposed updated language: This is a Registrar obligation. For a Registry to publish is optional, until such time a way has been found that allows for the transfer of consent from Registrar to Registry.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· A future date certain is not certain, so clarity is needed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The only language regarding implementation appears in Rec. 28 - Feb. 29, 2020.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· This is more difficult that some make it seem.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· For the period b/w the adoption of the EPDP Policy and the conclusion of the implementation effort set for on or before 29 February 2020.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>g. Recommendation 17 – Natural v Legal distinctions – consider clarification (30 minutes)</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Ry/Rr proposed modification - the language in the parentheses is the previous language.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The updated language from Ry/Rr is meant to clarify the recommendation.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The SSAC proposal seems the opposite of what the group came to, so the disagreement will be noted.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· SSAC would like to see a resolution to this = recommending as a possible path forward, in the deliberations in Phase 2. As we deliberate on this, there should be a balance on the cost to the ecosystem, not just the financial burden on contracted parties.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Consider adding a bullet that says: considers the potential benefits.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Add bullet on impact on the Internet/DNS ecosystem of not making the distinction.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· It is not just about legal vs natural persons - even with legal persons, there could be personal information of natural persons.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Phase 2 is not a second bite at the apple. </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· IP/BC change to third bullet makes the language more committal - instead of "will discuss", it is changed to "determine and resolve". It also deletes the second sentence of the recommendation.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· No objections were noted to these changes.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· For rec. 18, can 30 business days be changed to 30 calendar days?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Change 30 business days to 30 days.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>h. <b>NEW – Recommendation #14 – Privacy / Proxy Registrations – consider clarification and possible implementation guidance proposed (30 minutes)</b></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· One proposed change is to add "affiliated and accredited provider is used" instead of just affiliated.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Accredited is added so that when the policy goes into effect, this language will future-proof the policy.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The second bullet asks for the implementation to be completed within 90 days after the adoption of the EPDP policy recommendations by the board.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· It seems tough for this Team to put an implementation date certain on another IRT.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The expansion of accredited is inappropriate at this late stage.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· If there is some way to convey to the Council that this work should be done in an expedited manner, that would be preferred.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Isn't the onus on the P/P provider to provide the data, and not the registrar?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Not sure we're in a position to guarantee an implementation date.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Our job is not to future proof - we are looking at the status of things as they are now. We should defer to the competence of the other WGs/IRTs for the future work.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Support staff to put a note that PPSAI is an approved policy that is currently going through implementation. It will be important to understand the interplay between the display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy / proxy providers. Based on feedback received on this topic from the PPSAI IRT, the EPDP Team may consider this further in phase 2.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Data Retention - Rec. 15</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Add 15 months to account for complaints filed on the 365th date to ensure data is not deleted on Day 366</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Recommendation 7</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Small group looked through the workbooks</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· In the latest version of transfer of data from the registrar to the registry. There are two versions of this - there is one for TLDs where URS applies and where URS does not apply. This was put in the annex due to a previously-raised concern.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The current language of Rec. 7 is problematic b/c it creates an obligation that is not necessary and conflates the URS with the transfer of data from the registrar to the registry unnecessarily.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Proposed solution: requires transfer of registrant fields from a registrar to a registry with URS. Transfer of those fields should be optional based on registry policy (O-CPH). The table of required elements should be changed. URS does not create an obligation to transfer data. Remove the first table and leave the second table. And remove the reference to URS.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· URS contemplates the data comes from the registries. Accordingly, there should be a recommendation that the data should come from the registrar.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The URS is not a consensus policy, it is a contractual obligation since the 2012 round. There is not distinction of whether a provider should contact the registry or registrar. As part of the Temp Spec implementation from Annex D, there are specific additional requirements for the Registry Operator and for the registrar. Because data elements would be redacted, in some cases, the provider would contact the registry to retrieve the RNH data. The rationale for doing that is that in today's URS environment, providers contact the registry and not the registrar.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The workbooks are not binding, they are illustrative.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>3. NEW - Confirm groups for any recommendations that are designated as having ‘strong support, significant opposition’ as this information is to be included in the Final Report. (15 minutes) (see latest version of Consensus Designations document)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The consensus designations in red are the ones that have changed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· For the org field, we can call that consensus.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· What is important to the leadership team - identify the groups that are not supporting the consensus recommendations.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Generally speaking, there are notations within the report that recommendations have consensus/full consensus unless designated differently. The groups who disagree will be noted in the report. We could consider adding this table as an annex.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Action item is that the groups who do not support recommendations are denoted correctly so that everything is accurately documents. For consensus designations, there is no requirement to designate opposition.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· When we refer to BC and IPC, but it should be clarified parenthetically that it is 2/3 of one stakeholder group. (2/3 of CSG)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· We have a consistency problem with divergence and SS/SO for Rec. 2 and Rec. 16 – these should be the same designation.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Is ISPCP opposed to Rec. 2? The ISPCP has not objected to any recommendations but has recorded some concerns.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· For 16 – opposition – IPC, BC, ALAC, SSAC</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Council rules apply when voting, but within a WG, we are not viewed within our stakeholder group.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· The chart does not reflect the comment about the BC/IPC that they are not able to support the report without the requested changes. This dissent should be captured in a footnote on this chart.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· On Rec. 5 – there should be a note about divergence with the tech contact being optional.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Does contact information include tech contact? If it does not, then ALAC would oppose the recommendation.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· This is how the consent rec currently reads: "The EPDP Team recommends that, as soon as commercially reasonable, Registrar must provide the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder to provide its Consent to publish redacted contact information, as well as the email address, in the RDS for the sponsoring registrar"</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· Should contact be removed to address the problem?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· ACs should be treated the same as SGs to respect the participation of the groups.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>· BC/IPC would like to include their statement as an annex/minority statement to the report.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>4. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr style='height:58.75pt'><td valign=top style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:58.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>20 February 2019</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td><td valign=top style='border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:58.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Final Report </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Submit Final Report or confirm that version submitted on 11 February should be considered final</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td><td valign=top style='border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:58.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Staff Support Team / Council Liaison</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr><tr style='height:22.75pt'><td valign=top style='border:solid black 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:22.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>21 February 2019</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td><td valign=top style='border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:22.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Consider Final Report for adoption</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td><td valign=top style='border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:22.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>GNSO Council</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr><tr style='height:22.75pt'><td valign=top style='border:solid black 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:22.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>4 March 2019</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td><td valign=top style='border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:22.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Consider Final Report for adoption (if needed)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td><td valign=top style='border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:solid black 1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:22.75pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>GNSO Council</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>