[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope

Mon Jul 16 16:49:14 UTC 2018

Hi Susan,

Apologies for missing your email last night.

1.      The Initial Report on an Access Model (now referred to in the charter/scope as “standardized access model”) can be under development once the Temp Spec gating questions are answered, so I don’t see the process as you described it – “producing a Temp Spec Final Report and then going back to do another initial report.” At your request, we agreed to remove the references to “Phase 1 and Phase 2” to allow the group to begin work on the access model once the gating questions are answered, even if the Temp Spec initial report isn’t 100% final.  The Temp Spec Final Report simply cannot be gated or delayed by work on a standardized access model. If they can be finished concurrently, great, but one component has a deadline set by the Board, and the other does not. We will likely have to issue two initial reports and two final reports, and the charter must provide that flexibility. If I’m not understanding your concern accurately, please propose text that will help clarify.

2.      On your point about “Registrant Data” vs. “Registration Data” the Temporary Specification itself is named “Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data,” so I think we should keep that term.

Thanks and regards,

Keith

From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 12:21 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; pam.little at alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope

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 deliverable 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<mailto: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<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>]
   Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58 AM
   To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>; pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>; marika.konings at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
   Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
   To: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>; marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Pam Little
   Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
   To: Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>; marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto: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<mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>>

      Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08

      To:Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:To%3AEpdp-dt at icann.org> <Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>>; marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
      Cc: Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>; marika.konings at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/e9a20e92/attachment-0001.html>