<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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=us-ascii">
<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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Janis and EPDP2 working group members,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On behalf of the RySG team I am providing the following feedback to the draft batch 2 legal questions proposed by the legal committee.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The RySG would like to thank the legal committee members, support staff and chairs, Leon, and Becky. Obviously a lot of hard work above and beyond the regular EPDP2 work went into
this document and the RySG is appreciative of the time and efforts of all involved.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The priority 1 questions all deal with reverse lookups. The RySG team is of the opinion that reverse lookups are out of scope of the EPDP’s work. Consequently we request removing
the reverse lookup questions from the batch 2 submission to Bird & Bird. We recognize that reverse lookups are convenient. They were not previously supported under pre-GDPR systems or in the scope of the charter. Expanding SSAD functionality in this manner
is beyond our remit. It is the RySG position that the SSAD system resulting from our work should not support reverse lookups of any kind.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">This is not intended to preclude potential future policy work on reverse lookups however the RySG feels that policy work would need to be done in accordance with GNSO procedure developing
an issues paper and specifically scoping that work.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">We also want to make it clear that we are not proposing a prohibition on any reverse functionality that may exist elsewhere (we view that as similarly out of scope), only that it
isn’t in scope for the EPDP2 work in developing an SSAD.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Appreciating that a lot of effort clearly went into crafting the proposed batch 2 legal questions for Bird & Bird, the RySG team is requesting additional information on the intended
outcome of the questions for Bird & Bird. Noting the cost of outside counsel and our responsibility to be financially responsible, we are having a difficult time judging if these questions are necessary for our work and if responses to them will aid the development
of final policy recommendations. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">By way of example, we aren’t sure how an answer to the question on Territorial Scope would help inform our phase 2 policy recommendations. The working group has always agreed that
GDPR does not apply to everyone and has a shared understanding of its applicability. It doesn’t appear that asking this question will result in new information for the working group to consider.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">It would be helpful to the working group to have clarity on the intended result of each question (e.g. support or modify an existing SSAD policy recommendation). It seems likely
that would also help focus outside council if they have a better understanding of the purpose of the questions.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Thank you,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">RySG Team</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>