<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I know, I think after
looking at how the IPC and the BC win all the time it comes
down to one word: Customers. They are huge customers of the
registrars, and that might explain why they are caving on
this. I will give it another try but they are jumping all
over claiming we have agreed to this in the small group.
Support from my fellow councillors would be helpful. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The drafts and shift
back and forth from google to word documents has made it
extremely hard to track changes. I had this problem on the
EWG as well. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">See my detailed
responses below in bold</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-07-16 02:43, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvDBEKVPWNQ_bGcmACXv3amR5fqhPs2XwEJD=L+fYouUsg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
style="" color="#000000">Stephanie</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">IPC questions which are now in section J,
have to be 1. ideally removed <b>I am ready to give up
on that, tried again Sunday and failed. Suggest we put
a footnote (derogation) in, and refer to it every time
they start work on the model once the EPDP starts.</b> <a
href="http://2.be" moz-do-not-send="true">2.be</a> moved
to after data processing terms. If it cannot be turned
into a group question or a member of the drafting objects
to it, it should not be included. this is not a document
that IPC can insert as many questions as it wants, it's a
document that sets the scope of EPDP. <b>Good idea to
move it. will try that </b>and <span
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">3.<span> questions <span
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">reworded
to reflect its a group question and everyone agreed
on<b><span> Suggest some edits<br>
</span></b></span></span></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">IPC has moved up many of the questions
which are already asked under "systems for standardized
access" up in section J and before Part 3. Is it even
possible to respond to J, while Part 3 questions have not
been answered? Part 3 asks important questions about data
processing. For example it asks: </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;line-height:115%"><font color="#000000"><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"k1) For which data
processing activities undertaken by registrars and
registries as required by the Temporary Specification
does ICANN determine the purpose and means of
processing?" </font></font></p>
<font color="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;line-height:115%"><span><span> </span><span></span></span></p>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">How is it possible, to come up with an
ICANN "access" policy, which you will be doing if you
discuss J - before asking which data processing ICANN
determine the purpose and means of processing? <br>
</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>I am not sure that the order of these questions is important, but
it is a good catch. Needs to be noted or change the order</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvDBEKVPWNQ_bGcmACXv3amR5fqhPs2XwEJD=L+fYouUsg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"> How are you going to provide access under
ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected
because of ICANN purpose! </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">What they did really in this document was
to creep in "access and accreditation" into the primary
phase of the scope. So section J has to be removed. If it
is not possible, it has to move after Part 3. Most of
section J can be addressed under "systems for standardized
access". <b>Agreed</b><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">If that is not possible either, another
thing that could be done is to bring all the question
under section 3 before J. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">I have made changes to these questions and
reworded them and attached them. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><u>Your edits Stephanie do not expand the
scope of the EPDP.</u> Unlike IPC questions, there are
not so many additional questions that change the document
and its scope. IPC's questions certainly are expanding the
scope, putting answers instead of questions in the scope
and we need to inform everyone about this. <br>
</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>I actually think that Keith acknowledged that my edits were
helpful, and certainly Pam Little did. Unfortunately Caitlin's
notes anonymized comments. Hard to follow.</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvDBEKVPWNQ_bGcmACXv3amR5fqhPs2XwEJD=L+fYouUsg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000">Also remind them that J1(B) which is still
in the document, it was flagged (it was j6 at the time)
and was not removed way before the deadline. Adding
Caitlin's note on the doc: <span
style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">Note
from 9 July Call re: addition of proposed j6: We need to
be cautious about including this level of language in
the charter.<span> </span>This does not recognize the
importance of the gating questions that we have
described or the tiered access approach.<span> </span>These
individual use cases and requestors of data will be on a
spectrum.<span> </span>The group needs to be cautious
about including this level of language in the charter.<span>
</span>We need to focus first and foremost on questions
coming up with questions of legitimate use based on the
various types of requests.</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b>OK will try that</b><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvDBEKVPWNQ_bGcmACXv3amR5fqhPs2XwEJD=L+fYouUsg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><font style="" face="Arial, sans-serif">GNSO
council leaders asked the Board whether "UAM" should be
in the scope of EPDP considering ICANN org came up with
UAM, should they consider discussing it. Board gave one
of its typical </font>nonanswers<font style=""
face="Arial, sans-serif">: <span></span></font> </font></p>
<p class="gmail-p1"
style="font-family:Helvetica;margin:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;color:rgb(66,66,66);min-height:13px"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<font color="#000000">
<p class="gmail-p2"
style="margin:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><span
class="gmail-s1"
style="font-weight:normal;font-kerning:none"><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"As the EPDP makes
progress on its policy recommendations it may more
quickly find alignment with the larger community on
the elements of the unified access model. If that is
the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this
work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received
from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not
aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address
this matter together going forward.<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> " </span></font></span><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><a
href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf</a></font></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"
style="margin:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"
style="margin:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">ICANN keeps saying
it is seeking legal clarity on issues relevant to access
and if DPAs clarifications go against EPDP
recommendations on access, it will of course follow DPAs
advice. so in effect what ICANN is saying is that I have
created a parallel process which I will be working on,
you can do whatever you want in EPDP and then we can
exchange notes. We could explain this during the
drafting team meetings and see if they can be convinced
that we get some time until some of the questions
related to Access has been responded to by the DPAs. </font></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"
style="margin:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><span
class="gmail-s1" style="font-kerning:none"><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"><br>
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"
style="margin:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><span
class="gmail-s1" style="font-kerning:none"><font
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"><br>
</span></font></span></p>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">Thanks for all
the work.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><span
style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="gmail-m_-1380837168268235830gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00 PM Stephanie
Perrin <<a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Predictably enough, Susan is demanding exactly what I
told Keith would happen...immediate development of the
implementation of the access model<br>
</p>
<div
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-forward-container">SP<br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-email-headers-table"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap"
align="RIGHT">Subject: </th>
<td>Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap"
align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:44:27 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap"
align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Susan Kawaguchi <a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><susankpolicy@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap"
align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Drazek, Keith <a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><kdrazek@verisign.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap"
align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>McGrady, Paul D. <a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><PMcGrady@winston.com></a>,
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca></a>,
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><Donna.Austin@team.neustar></a>,
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><marika.konings@icann.org></a>,
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><caitlin.tubergen@icann.org></a>,
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">haforrestesq@gmail.com</a>
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><haforrestesq@gmail.com></a>,
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>
<a
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><rafik.dammak@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Hello All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I had intermittent access to the internet this
weekend. A few comments. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It appears that we use the term "Registration"
data and "Registrant" data interchangeably in the
document. I think it would be more concise to
replace Registrant for Registration through out the
document. Registration data is not at issue in the
Temp Spec as it includes generated data, registry
and registrar data etc. along with the Registrant
data. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am also concerned with the 3rd deliverable, as
we agreed to move from phase 2 on access to a
staggered approach I think we should also give the
working group the option of dealing with the access
piece in the report when they feel it is
appropriate. It imposes an unnecessary restriction.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It also sets up the access issue to have
absolutely no hope in being resolved before the Temp
Spec expires. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I somehow missed the fact that the ePDP would
issue a Final report without actually doing all
their work. From a purely structural issue is this
possible. Usually when a Final report is issued the
working group is done and it moves on to an
implementation phase. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you for resolving the issue on the council
voting I agree with Paul on this issue. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Susan </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at
7:14 PM, Drazek, Keith <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div>Thanks very much Paul, I appreciate
your response and agree with your view on
this. The Council would need to vote to
approve a motion objecting to the
consensus of the WG. Otherwise the WG
consensus would stand. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Keith</div>
<div><br>
On Jul 15, 2018, at 9:45 PM, McGrady, Paul
D. <<a
href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div
class="m_-1380837168268235830m_-4018651265198784412m_2648086008221523898m_4786140953234300216WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Thanks
Keith. Your changes are fine with
me so long as it is clear that the
Council doesn’t have to take a
vote on whether or not it
objects. In other words, if the
idea is that some portion of the
GNSO community does object to the
notion that the gating questions
have been answered, they would
need to bring a motion objecting
and get it past the Council. If
that is the case, that is fine
with me. Thanks Keith!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
Drazek, Keith [<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 15,
2018 6:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> McGrady, Paul D. <<a
href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>;
<a
href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">susankpolicy@gmail.com</a>;
<a
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>;
<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
haforrestesq@gmail.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Epdp-dt]
EPDP Scope</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul and
Stephanie,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see my
responses and proposed path forward
inline in red font below. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
McGrady, Paul D. <<a
href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 15,
2018 4:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Drazek, Keith <<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>;
<a
href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">susankpolicy@gmail.com</a>;
<a
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>;
<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
haforrestesq@gmail.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE:
[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Thanks
Keith.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Regarding
Stephanie’s proposal to change “</span><span>Does
ICANN have additional
responsibilities to the data
subject beyond what is required by
applicable law?” </span><span
style="color:#1f497d">to “</span><span>ICANN
as a data controller has specific
duties to the registrant or data
subject under applicable law.
What other other legal or other
obligations should be noted by
this EPDP WG in its analysis,
including any duties that ICANN
might have in its role as
administrator of a finite resource
in the Internet governance
sphere?”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Respectfully,
I think the first sentence gets
into answering questions rather
than posing them – something we
have tried to avoid from the
beginning. I think Stephanie’s
statement in that first new
sentence is presupposed in the
question which she proposes to
delete. I think we should leave
“Does ICANN have additional
responsibilities to the data
subject beyond what is required by
applicable law?” and not include
her first proposed new sentence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regarding
the second sentence “What other
other legal or other obligations
should be noted by this EPDP WG in
its analysis, including any duties
that ICANN might have in its role
as administrator of a finite
resource in the Internet
governance sphere?” – I simply
have no idea what this question is
getting at. What finite
resource? What is a governance
sphere? Is there any way to
tighten this up so that it’s
meaning is clear? Assuming we can
do that and that it is harmless
when completed, I see no reason
not to tack it on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red">KEITH: How about
rephrasing this sentence as: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:red">“In addition to
any specific duties ICANN may have
as data controller, what other
obligations should be noted by
this EPDP WG, including any duties
to registrants that are unique and
specific to ICANN’s role as the
administrator of policies and
contracts governing gTLD domain
names.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Lastly, and
most importantly, I am opposed to
this change: “and confirmation by
the GNSO Council” seen here in its
context: “The threshold for
establishing “answered” for the
gating questions shall be
consensus of the WG and
confirmation by the GNSO
Council.” Since the only way for
the Council to confirm something
is through a vote, what this is
proposing is that there must be a
formal Council vote before we take
up unified access model (or
whatever Stephanie’s preferred
term is). This is a de facto 2
phase approach we have already
argued over and agreed we wouldn’t
do. This is important to the IPC,
so it is a change we really can’t
live with. I’m troubled to see
this well settled argument rearing
its head again. We made a lot of
good faith compromises as a result
of eliminating formal phasing –
including cooperating with the
“gating questions” idea you
introduced. This feels like a 14<sup>th</sup>
hour bait and switch. I hope you
will take it out.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red">KEITH: How
about changing the proposed
affirmative approval threshold to
non-objection, as follows:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:red">“Work on this
topic shall begin once the gating
questions above have been answered
and finalized in preparation for
the Temporary Specification
initial report. The threshold for
establishing “answered” for the
gating questions shall be
consensus of the WG and
non-objection by the GNSO
Council.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Can you
please confirm receipt? Thanks!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red">KEITH: I hope
this helps bridge the remaining
gap and gets us to a final draft.
If anyone has further thoughts or
concerns, raise them now. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red">Paul and
Stephanie, please respond so I can
nail this down and send to the DT
list. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:red">Keith</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
Drazek, Keith [<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 15,
2018 2:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> McGrady, Paul D. <<a
href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>;
<a
href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">susankpolicy@gmail.com</a>;
<a
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>;
<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
haforrestesq@gmail.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Epdp-dt]
EPDP Scope</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Attached is the
latest version of the red-line with
Stephanie’s edits incorporated. She
and I just spoke on the phone and
walked through them, and we both
realized there was some confusion
this morning around which version of
Section J was most recent, but
that’s now straightened out. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to
Stephanie, NCSG still has
significant concerns about any
discussion of unified
access/accreditation <u>models</u>
before finalizing the Initial
Report. I explained the gating
questions are designed to ensure we
focus in the near term on the Temp
Spec and answer the necessary
questions before designing something
with incomplete data.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul and Susan,
please review and let us know if
these new edits are acceptable or if
you have concerns. My goal is still
to get this finalized tonight. The
previous edits from the last version
are still showing, and I noted the
new edits from Stephanie by adding a
comment box for each.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks in
advance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
McGrady, Paul D. <<a
href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 15,
2018 1:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Drazek, Keith <<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>;
<a
href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">susankpolicy@gmail.com</a>;
<a
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>;
<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">marika.konings@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>;
<a
href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
haforrestesq@gmail.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE:
[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Thanks
Keith.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Since you
are doing some after-deadline
edits, some on the IPC wonder
whether the questions at c) are
necessary gating questions for
discussion of a unified access
model. I admit that this is
further in the weeds that I am
comfortable, but I wonder if you
could look at those again and see
if they can be removed from the
gating questions? If they can’t
be removed, can I have a few
sentences on why they need to be
gating questions that I can send
back to those who asked?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Also, with
after deadline changes form the
NCUC, the IPC will need to be able
to see what the proposed changes
will be before we can agree that
the draft charter is “final.” 13<sup>th</sup>
hour changes are sometimes benign
or sometimes they are designed to
try to get through changes at the
last minute under pressure that
the small team would not have
agreed to earlier. So, I guess I
will have to reserve judgment on
those until we see them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Thanks so
much and hang in there!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d">Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
Epdp-dt [<a
href="mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Drazek,
Keith via Epdp-dt<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 15,
2018 9:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Drazek, Keith <<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Epdp-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Epdp-dt]
EPDP Scope</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all. Please
wait before reviewing. I may have
jumped the gun and we may have
more suggested edits incoming from
NCSG.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM,
Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <<a
href="mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">epdp-dt@icann.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As discussed
on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting
Team call, attached is the final
draft of the EPDP charter scope
section. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks to
everyone for your contributions
to this effort.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><Updated
Scope Section 15 July 2018 --
Consolidated Edits.docx></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><Updated
Scope Section 15 July 2018 --
Consolidated Edits
CLEAN.docx></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>_______________________________________________<br>
Epdp-dt mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Epdp-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C0921852e6c3241b372f308d5ea5f2fef%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636672616898611630&sdata=vxYmX%2FaQPOzgFPCOr57t3rR48fCa4%2FXGpNfssGVDt1w%3D&reserved=0"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt</a></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:gray"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:gray">
<hr width="100%" size="3"
align="center"> </span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:gray">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. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>