[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 16 21:33:25 UTC 2018
The problem in my view is that the temp spec erred in referring to
registrant data. Too limited. Registration data is a better term to use.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2018-07-16 12:20, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
> 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 <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
> <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 definedreconciled 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 19^th .
>
> 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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e5a55903/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Epdp-dt
mailing list