[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [ALAC] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Hadia at tra.gov.eg
Mon Feb 18 12:02:06 UTC 2019

Thank you Cheryl,  Indeed the BC and IPC amendments are in line with what we have been discussing.

Below is a summary of their recommendations that I believe most of us previously agreed to

We have been discussing that there is no mention to consumer protection or cyber security the proposed edit of recommendation number#1 which speaks about discloser  - Purpose 2- suggests deleting "lawful data disclosure requests" and instead spelling out the purposes
 consumer protection, cybersecurity, intellectual property, or law enforcement.
and in all cases it goes without saying that disclosure has to be lawful as it has to be GDPR compliant.

Amendments to recommendation # 18 suggests that the registries and registrars should reasonably consider the requests and defines a service level for responses (95% responses within 15 days).

Amendments to recommendation #14 add the accredited privacy/proxy to the affiliated and says that the implementation of the Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Consensus Policy must be completed within 90 days after the adoption of the EPDP policy recommendations by the Board.

Recommendation #12 provides specificity  replacing "some future date to be determined by the implementation review" with  102 days

Recommendation #17 speaks about discussing geographic distinction in phase 2 as well as legal vs natural – which we also discussed and considered

In addition they support the ALAC comments with regard to accuracy and thick-thin Whois


From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:41 AM
To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [ALAC] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

Thanks Cheryl. If others agree, please speak up QUICKLY. If Internet speed was fast, EPDP speed is even faster and we already have one negative message - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html.

Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On February 17, 2019 8:47:36 PM EST, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:
Alan and Hadia,

Thank you for passing this on, from my purely personal perspective, the IPC/BC proposed text amendments to the Final Draft of the EPDP Phase 1 Report, is that they are indeed, as indicated by you Alan, well worthy of receiving ALAC/At-Large support.

Firstly, they are it seems to me, in keeping with a few concerns and considerations on some matters raised in your discussions with the CPWG, and also reflecting the views and preferences articulated by the majority of active participants in the WG.

They also, in my view, act as enhancements and improvements to the existing Draft Final Text, in the manner in which they seek to ensure greater specificity and clarity about the purpose and expectations of the following Phase 2 work of the EPDP Team, in addition to providing valuable timeline information and guidance to the key actors/stakeholders engaged in and affected by GDPR, in the near and medium term and provide both greater surety and predictability to the Full Consensus outcomes of that work.

I would, therefore, encourage the ALAC and the rest of the CPWG / At-Large Community to support your endorsement of this proposed text as 'friendly amendments' (more than actually) to the Final Report...


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement?


From: Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com<mailto:margiemilam at fb.com>>
To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

Dear Colleagues-

The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport-3Fpreview-3D_102145109_104237485_EPDP-2520Team-2520Draft-2520Final-2520Report-2520-2D-2520Redline-2520-2D-2520version-252016-2520February-25202019.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=JeJV68_XA0ovurRrcT2fYYDnJIRHwZ_8MSTwyFhaG1A&s=8u2KQZGE49aFP7yFTnfWTiuyyqvJR8V9PDy5tnqBRJU&e=>.

The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support.

We hope to discuss these items with you this week.

All the best,

Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek
BC Representatives on the EPDP

Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190218/8ff06894/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list