[Gnso-epdp-team] Legal Advice SOW

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Dec 11 09:27:11 UTC 2018

Thanks for these very helpful comments Kristina, I agree particularly that we will have a hard time finding a firm who is competent in GDPR who has not represented somebody who has a presence or interest in the DNS....the clarity you suggest might help.

The questions indeed are leading, the idea was that the bullet points represented are indicative of the positions represented by stakeholders.....hence, it provides a perspective on what the legal counsel might be asked to speak to.  Not to arbitrate between sides, but to present factual analysis of how the law might be interpreted.

cheers Stephanie

On 2018-12-11 08:22, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team wrote:


In the hope that it's not too late to provide comments on the SOW, I've set out some comments below.   If it would be helpful to provide a redline that reflects these comments, I’m happy to do so.

First (and most importantly), many thanks to Diane and Stephanie for taking the lead on the SOW.  As someone who has both written and responded to Legal RfPs, I appreciate how difficult it is to write one that results in useful responses and avoids later issues.

There are several places in which it would be helpful to provide additional detail and clarity. For example, what do we expect from counsel in terms of work product - written work, verbal advice or both?  Do we expect counsel to attend the calls and provide advice real-time and on the spot or attend the upcoming F2F?  (Either of which is a fairly big ask, in my view.)  Do we expect counsel to listen to the recordings of all past meetings? Are we looking for expertise in GDPR or GDPR + other national data protection laws/legal regimes?  Is it enough for counsel to be familiar with ICANN or do we want expertise in the domain name ecosystem?

I wanted to flag separately the conflicts requirement, which I think we should consider refining.  I suspect it will be very difficult to identify qualified counsel whose firm does not represent and is not adverse to any of ICANN or the employers of EPDP WG members and alternates (including the relevant national governments represented by our GAC colleagues).  We should consider refining the conflicts requirement to limit it in substantive scope (GDPR and data protection) or time.

I think we will receive the most useful answers to our questions if the questions (and background) are worded more neutrally.  I have some concern that, as worded, the questions/background are too leading.

Finally, I assume that ICANN has standard requirements and language about billing rates and bases that apply here.  If not, we should talk to ICANN Legal about their expectations.

Talk to everyone tomorrow/later today, depending on your time zone.


-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 8:32 AM
To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Legal Advice SOW

Hi Everyone:

Attached is a proposed SOW for legal expertise to provide advice on specific questions for our group. It includes 2 sample questions to give potential advisors a sense of the work to be undertaken.

We will discuss this briefly during the meeting and you’ll have a brief period of time to review and comment on it before it is sent on to ICANN.

Thanks very much to Diane and Stephanie who have gone through several iterations fo this in the last 48 hours.

Best regards,


Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181211/a5eb2e9c/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list