[Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Consensus Call #1

Thomas Rickert epdp at gdpr.ninja
Sat Feb 9 17:24:19 UTC 2019

Kurt, all,
On behalf of the ISPCP I would like to confirm that we support the consensus positions in the first bucket of the consensus call. This support is conditional to no changes being made to the language, in which case we would need to reconsider.


> Am 03.02.2019 um 22:42 schrieb Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>:
> Hi Everyone: 
> This is a long email but each of the points here is important to me, so please read it. 
> This email launches what will be at least three "consensus calls" that will conclude the first phase of our work. The process and timing for this step has been so often discussed that I am afraid it appears to some than a much a bigger step than it really is, which is to reconfirm the state of our work. During earlier stages of our work, I was of a mind to conduct these consensus calls as we came to individual conclusions - so that these steps would not seem like so much of a big deal. 
> To me, the big deal occurred when we came to agreement on each of the seven “purposes” that are now part of our recommendations. We started out with the 13 purposes that were in the Temporary Specification and, after many hours of discussion and compromise, developed the current list of seven.  I think that is what this group did best. Even though there has been a time gap between each of our agreements and this consensus call, this final step should be treated as the natural follow-on to our discussion.
> There are a few particulars in the published guidelines of the consensus calls process that I wish to call out to explain why we are following this methodology (and why I believe you can treat this step as a natural follow-on to our previous work).  
> 1) We are making this call via email because,  "Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this reason, should take place on the designated mailing list to ensure that all Working Group members have the opportunity to fully participate in the consensus process.”
> 2) I am making these assignments as to the level of agreement on my own and then I am checking them with you because, "It is the role of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this designation to the Working Group. Members of the Working Group should be able to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group discussion.”
> 3) I believe we have satisfied the requirement that, "After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair makes an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review,” because we discussed each issue (either led by CBI or me), and there was a significant pause at the end of each conclusion to check for other viewpoints. (There were mild complaints by some that this was done to excess.) The conclusions were then published for team review: in meeting notes, on the team wiki page, and in drafts of final reports. 
> This is the time in this email for me to state that this is not the time for revisions or the re-opening of discussion. While we have completed this phase of work in a relatively short time, each discussion was thorough and knowledgable. (Even today, a small team is reviewing every data element and processing step in the data workbooks in order that the final report reflects the competence of our work.) Memories of our extended discussion to arrive at the current set of recommendations are likely buried under the avalanche of the work in attending to the remaining issues. While the particulars of those earlier discussions might be forgotten, we should have confidence that the earlier debates need not be repeated. The penalties for not completing our work by the due date (as imposed by others) has become more clear over time and we are not afforded the luxury of re-checking our work. 
> The language in many of these recommendations makes it clear that these are the product of compromise - I think every group on this team has made a significant concession along the way. Given that, I am making a slight perturbation in the way your feedback to each of my designations is collected. 
> The way the process is described in the working group guidelines is that for each of the recommendations (including each of the purposes for collecting registration data), I am obligated to indicate the degree of agreement that has been reached on each: full consensus, consensus, strong support, divergence, and minority view. (The definitions of each are in an attached document.)
> Generally, minority statements by groups in opposition to “consensus" or "strong agreement” can be published. Given the degree of compromise that has occurred, I also want to give a voice to groups who go along with the consensus position but that want to preserve an argument for the record or for a later date. I think that groups who had the courage to compromise and support agreement on an issue should not be prevented from publishing supplemental thoughts. If your group wishes to provide a supplementary statement to accompany your support of consensus, that will be accepted for publication along with the final report. If offered, each of these statements should begin with some affirmation of the consensus position. 
> So with that, we’ve divided these emails into three sections of the team’s work. We did this to make the process easier for you to manage (avoiding 20+ emails), and to start this process while the last issues are being completed. We will The three sections are: 
> The Purposes for Processing Registration Data: 
> Purpose 1 - Establish the rights of a Registered Name Holder
> Purpose 2 - Maintaining SSR through enabling of lawful access
> Purpose 3 - Enable communication with RNH
> Purpose 4 - Safeguarding RNH's Registration Data
> Purpose 5 - Handling Contractual Compliance
> Purpose 6 - Resolution of DRPs
> Purpose 7 - gTLD registration policy eligibility criteria
> Recommendations considered completed in our earlier discussions: 
> Recommendation #2 - Commitment to consider a system for Standardized Access to non-public Registration Data
> Recommendation #3 - Requirements related to accuracy
> Recommendation #15 - URS / UDRP
> Recommendation #16 - Instructions for RPM PDP WG
> Recommendation #17 - Input from RPM PDP WG to inform subsequent access discussion
> Recommendation #18 - Data processing agreements with dispute resolution providers (incl. Question #4)
> Recommendation #19 - Transfer Policy
> Recommendation #20 - Input to Transfer Policy review (incl. Question #5)
> Recommendation #21 - Data processing agreements with non-Contracted Party entities involved in registration data processing
> Recommendation #8 - Redaction
> Recommendation #13 - Controller Agreement
> Recommendation #6 - Escrow Providers
> Recommendation #7 - Contractual Compliance
> New – Consent to publish additional information
> Recommendations in the process of being completed or where there is disagreement: 
> Recommendation #9 - Organization field
> Recommendation #NEW - City Field
> Recommendation #10 - Email communication
> Recommendation #14 - Responsible parties
> Recommendation #4 - Data elements to be collected by Registrars (incl. Question #2)
> Recommendation #5 - Data elements to be transferred from Registrars to Registries
> Recommendation #New - Geographic Basis
> Recommendation #New - Natural vs. legal
> Recommendation #12 - Reasonable access
> Recommendation #NEW - Implementation Transition Period
> Recommendation #11 - Data retention
> Recommendation #22 - Impact on other policies
> Recommendation #NEW - Additional Purposes
> It will come as no surprise to you that I believe that we have reached agreement on the first two sets of recommendations, and also that I wish to work pretty hard during the time we have on resolving the remaining issues in the third set. The third set these recommendations might be “unbundled” as we come to agreement on some or if we think extending or tolling the discussion might get us to consensus on others.
> The attached document contains a summary of the first set of agreements. Each contains the shorthand title and the wording of the recommendation in the final report. It is important to note that the shorthand title does not appear in the final report, just the recommendation itself plus the accompanying explanation that you can read in the currently posted version of the final report. Also, I have added  for your reference the GNSO Guidelines for working group decision making are included. 
> In another slight contravention to the standard practice, I have used the label, “Full Consensus / Consensus” as a signal to the GNSO Council that we have reached a consensus position on these issues but also as a salute to or indiction of the degree of teamwork and compromise that has taken place. Either term has an equivalent effect on the Council discussion. 
> On this first set, please revert to me by the end of Wednesday if you disagree with my assessment and if you will provide a statement for the final report. Remember that you can support a consensus position and still provide a statement. The second set will be published tomorrow and will ask for feedback by Thursday. If we can in someway extend these deadlines (and we are working to do that), I will let you know. 
> Thank you for taking your time to read this. 
> Sincerely,
> Kurt
> <Consensus call - Bundle 1 - Purposes.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190209/ebc6acfe/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list