[council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Tue Feb 12 19:07:53 UTC 2019

Hi all,

Thanks for forwarding this note from the BC’s EPDP WG reps. I’ll be happy to provide some additional context and guidance, both for Councilors and for the members of the EPDP WG. I’m copying Kurt, Rafik and Marika, so this can be forwarded to the EPDP WG list.

1.      During the EPDP WG Chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team made clear there would need to be two distinct phases of the work of the EPDP, each with its own Initial Report and Final Report. Phase One would focus on the Temporary Specification with an imposed 12-month deadline of May 25, 2019 due to the Board’s decision to invoke the Temp Spec. Phase Two would focus on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data after the gating questions from Phase One were addressed and the GNSO Council agreed. Here is the Charter language specifying the Objectives and timing:

“To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the EPDP Team’s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data as well as regarding the EPDP Team’s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data, pursuant to the processes described in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Expedited PDP Manual. Work on recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data should not commence until all gating questions have been answered. Similarly, delivery of the Final Report on the EPDP Team’s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board (before 25 May 2019) should not be held up by work that may still be ongoing in relation to the EPDP Team’s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data.”

2.      The Phase One Initial Report was delivered on 21 November and public comments were received, analyzed and incorporated. During the chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team agreed, after much negotiation, to consider initiating the Phase Two work after the publication of the Phase One Initial Report, rather than after the Phase One Final Report, with the hope/expectation that the gating questions would have been sufficiently answered and the foundation for Phase Two would have been established. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Phase One Initial Report was not sufficiently complete, the gating questions were not yet addressed, and much more work was required before Phase Two could begin. Fortunately, with the current Phase One Final Report nearly complete, the EPDP will be able to begin work on Phase Two in short order.

3.      As everyone should have seen in my email to the Council list last night (responding to Rafik’s note submitting the draft Final Report and Council Motion), our proposed motion will approve the Phase One Final Report and Consensus Policy recommendations AND signal the Council’s agreement (through non-objection) that the Phase Two work can begin. This is a significant moment where the EPDP WG is recommending a Consensus Policy replacement to the Temp Spec to be confirmed by Council and ICANN Board, it has substantially answered the gating questions, and it also agreed to defer certain issues to Phase Two. This is the definition of bottom-up consensus policy-making, and the GNSO Council looks forward to approving the Phase One Final Report, delivering it to the Board, and to supporting the EPDP WG in its Phase Two work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or Uniform Access Model.

To summarize:

*       The EPDP WG was chartered to have two distinct phases, one on the Temp Spec, the other on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data and the Annex to the Temporary Specification (Important Issues for Further Community Action).
*       The current report is the Final Report from Phase One.
*       The GNSO Council is expected to approve the Phase One Final Report replacing the Temp Spec AND authorize the EPDP WG to move to Phase Two.
*       Following GNSO PDP operating procedures and the ICANN bylaws, the EPDP WG recommendations to replace the Temp Spec will need to be approved by GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to ensure they are Consensus Policies and enforceable by ICANN Org.
*       The EPDP Charter is clear that the work on the System for Standardized Access is the next critical phase and it will receive the full support of the GNSO Council and ICANN Org.
*       Without Council approval of the Phase One Final Report, and without a new Consensus Policy to replace the Temp Spec before May 25, 2019, there will be no work on Phase Two.

I hope this helps provide clarity around the views and intent of the GNSO Council as we initiated this important work and our expectations for the coming weeks. I appreciate the opportunity to review and reflect on the Charter and the work of the EPDP and I’m impressed by the group’s output in a very compressed timeframe.

Please let me know if anyone has follow up questions. Otherwise, we’ll look forward to considering the EPDP WG Phase One Final Report during our 21 February and/or 4 March GNSO Council meetings.


Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:36 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: Mark Svancarek (CELA) <marksv at microsoft.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
Importance: High

Dear all,

I’ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC’s EPDP participants. I’m copying them here for ease.

We’d appreciate your thoughts.



Hi –

Thank you for sharing this note.   I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report – although it is misnamed a “Final Report” is really only an “Phase 1 Interim Report” since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered.  As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete.

I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but  there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as:

…the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added)

This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP.  However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team.  Further, according to the charter:

System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data

Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added)

The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_epdp-2Dgtld-2Dregistration-2Ddata-2Dspecs-2Dinitial-2D21nov18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=XJxBprwNEXjSszkwuEBJGlqcEFtfl-khXMFCNZGnmrs&s=G9xxOW1qkKuaPQ6d3WXhn61IYOR9wT9hMeiSXE_W6L0&e=>).  Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year.  Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work.  What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2.

Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses “Reasonable Access.”  In what is labeled the draft final report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport-3Fpreview-3D_102145109_104236114_EPDP-2520Team-2520Draft-2520Final-2520Report-2520-2D-2520CLEAN-2520-2D-2520version-25208-2520February-25202019.docx&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=XJxBprwNEXjSszkwuEBJGlqcEFtfl-khXMFCNZGnmrs&s=Do1uJaFk34KL6cF91PTuJz1b74Nvra5w1sYZzxu_6rU&e=>, the charter’s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase.  Again, the EPDP team’s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current “consensus calls” instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed.

As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council’s instructions should be updated accordingly.

All the best,


From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM
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>>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval

hi all,

Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report.

You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=2bKdeEUYzoij8WxciKZVb5VVqVK3V3yRZ0UzXrF7ptk&s=O_3E1UObrwyVNxfNzSbSJ486aS60ILTVbUwdZSmPYPM&e=>.

Best Regards,


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Date: mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 08:10
Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>

Hi all,

I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard.

The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report.

Best Regards,

Rafik Dammak


Dear Councillors:

We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.

The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document.

The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of “quiet period” to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report.

With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where:

• The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation

• The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation

• The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion.

In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final.

Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow.

We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations.

Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals.

Best regards,

EPDP Leadership Team

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190212/10109588/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the council mailing list