[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope

Mon Jul 16 16:20:45 UTC 2018

Hi Keith,

I sent a couple comments last night but very concerned with how we can
issue a Final report for the ePDP and then go back and do another initial
report.  I think we should consider all of these as numbered deliverables
until the work of the ePDP is finalized and then submit a Final Report.

The* second deliverabl*e shall be the Initial Report which will include the
items that received full consensus support per the triage document as well
as all other items of the Temporary Specification (not including the Annex)
that were considered and deliberated upon, followed by a Final Report
following review of public comments. Per the illustrative timeline in
section II of the charter, this implies that the Initial Report on the
items related to the Temporary Specification (excluding the Annex) is
expected to be published for public comment shortly after ICANN63 (October
2018) and the *Final Report* delivered to the GNSO Council for its
consideration by the end of January / beginning of February 2019.

The third deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be an* Initial Report *outlining
aproposed model [PL1] [DK2] of a system for providing accredited access to
non-public registration data, where items having Full Consensus of the
group are:

Other point I made was concerning the use of "registration" vs "registrant"
data.  For the most part the Temp Spec addresses Registrant data (and this
is what is in dispute) not the full registration data which includes
generated , register, and registry data.

We should reference registrant data unless we the topic includes all of the
fields in the record.

------------------------------

 [PL1]Not clear what the “the proposed model” is? Should it be “a proposed
model”?

 [DK2]Corrected to “a proposed model”

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Keith.
>
>
>
> We can support my alternative language in J, even though I think the issue
> of harmonization is an important one the WG should consider.  We can’t
> support Pam’s proposed language, so hopefully, Pam can agree that my
> alternative language is acceptable.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58 AM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>; pam.little at alibaba-inc.com;
> Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
>
>
> Hi Pam and Paul,
>
>
>
> Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and responding to
> her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested language below for Section
> J.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
> *To:* Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt at icann.org;
> marika.konings at icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
>
>
> Hi Pam,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your proposed edits.  However, I do think that they
> eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would
> prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
>
>
>
> If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an
> unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work.
>
>
>
> If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be
> clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong path.  J1
> already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access.  I think we
> could ask “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further
> clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a
> community-wide model…”  We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the
> purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on
> the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring
> a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
>
>
>
> So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert.  If we can’t get
> that, we would be OK with:
>
>
>
> “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further clarified
> and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide
> model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the
> following elements:”
>
>
>
> Best to all,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org
> <epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Pam Little
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
> *To:* Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org; Drazek, Keith <
> kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
>
>
> Hi Keith
>
>
>
> Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
>
>
>
> Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss
> this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time,
> I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of
> them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and
> consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my
> proposed change to J2 below:
>
>
>
> "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be clarified or
> defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent
> possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration
> data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access
> or similar framework which takes into account at least the following
> elements:"
>
>
>
> It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re
> fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed
> change to try to make it more neutral.
>
>
>
> I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft:
>
>
>
> *"The EPDP Team shall respect the **timelines** and deliverables as
> outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per
> the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work
> plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to
> achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the
> ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any
> significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a
> timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work
> plan needed adjustment." *
>
>
>
> The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP
> Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt at icann.org>
>
> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
>
> To:Epdp-dt at icann.org <Epdp-dt at icann.org>; marika.konings at icann.org <
> marika.konings at icann.org>
>
> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
>
>
> Hello again everyone….
>
>
>
> Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for
> your review and our vote on the 19th.
>
>
>
> I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the
> DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> *From:* Drazek, Keith
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
>
>
> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may
> have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the
> final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
>
>
>
> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best
> to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this
> is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting.
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
>
> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits CLEAN.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Epdp-dt mailing list
> Epdp-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Epdp-dt mailing list
> Epdp-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180716/a8a0310c/attachment-0001.html>