[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope

Tue Jul 17 00:42:52 UTC 2018

Colleagues,

We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has worked
almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up against work and
family pressures and the tantalising photos of others' summer family
holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us to our limits, and it kills
me to see the significant efforts at compromise from Panama and the two
weeks since come undone in the final 3 days.

We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent and very
real - that the community's perception of the Council's ability to deliver
on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at stake on Thursday. If we
are unable to agree on the charter, there is a live risk that Pandora's box
opens.

We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the timeline
that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to resist the
temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If language is redundant,
they will work around it. If it is not perfect, we will empower them to
refine, and come back to Council with questions where necessary. Let's get
this team started, and see if these last minute issues are truly obstacles
to their work. If we do not get them started, we may never find out. If you
are willing to work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and
let the Team push forward, now is the time to speak up.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you for the feedback.
>
> To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very simple: to
> comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of WHOIS" or the idea of
> harmonization as a premise or goal is fundamentally flawed. As you know,
> there is already fragmentation of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know,
> .JP does not even have a WHOIS service.
>
> More importantly, I would like to point out the latest guidance regarding
> Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB letter (see page 6
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby
> -05jul18-en.pdf). Specifically:
>
> 1.  Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not
> mandatory.
> 2.  The responsibility for designing a model that will provide the
> assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first instance, up to
> the data controllers.
>
> The previous langauge and your latest suggested language pre-suppose there
> should be a "community-wide model for access or similar framework", which
> in my view, is inconsistent with the above guidance.
>
> I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sender:Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58
> To:PMcGrady at winston.com <PMcGrady at winston.com>; PAMELA LITTLE <
> pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; Epdp-dt at icann.org <Epdp-dt at icann.org>;
> marika.konings 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/20180717/983dbf00/attachment-0001.html>