EPDP Team Face-to-Face meetings held in Los Angeles, California 09-11 September


Day 1

hamburger model

Alex Deacon - Accreditation Policy and Process Framework For Discussion - Read-Only.

Milton's Memo on accreditation models

Building Block f - accreditation

Building Block c - user groups

Building Block b - purposes

Building block n - financial sustainability

Day 2 & 3

Building Block b - purposes

Building Block n - financial sustainability

ICANN-EPDP - Qs 1 & 2 - 9th September 2019

ICANN-EPDP - Question 3 - 10th September 2019

ICANN-EPDP - Q4 - 9th September 2019


Building Block i and L - Query PolicyDay 3

Building Block d and h - acceptable use policy

General Info:

EPDP Team Statement of Participation - Phase 2https://community.icann.org/x/yYWGBg

AGENDA | ICANN EPDP Los Angeles Face-to-Face

9-11 September 2019

Overview (Local Time)

Day 1, Monday

8:00-8:30 Arrival

8:30 Formal Meeting Start

12-13:00 Lunch

17:30 Wrap Up

19:00 Dinner

Day 2, Tuesday

8:00-8:30 Arrival

8:30 Formal Meeting Start

12-13:00 Lunch

17:30 Wrap Up

Day 3, Wednesday

8:00-8:30 Arrival

8:30 Formal Meeting Start

14:00: late lunch and anyone who wants to leave for flights can.

END of meeting


Building Blocks


Strawberry Team


Building Blocks

Open Issues

Policy Principles


Remaining Discussion Topics

Implementation Guidelines

Confirm Meeting Outcomes and Next Steps

Meeting Objectives

  • Refine Building Blocks
  • Develop Agreement on Policy Principles
  • Identify EPDP Goals and Work between now and ICANN Montreal

Day 1, Monday


Arrive at ICANN Office


Introductions, Agenda Review, Meeting Objectives

Group Working Agreements and EPDP Statement of Participation

Logistics of Meeting Space

Revisit and Confirm SSAD Overall Structure


Revisit and Confirm SSAD Overall Structure

Confirm Approach to Building Blocks Discussion

10:00Prepare Questions for ICANN.org CEO Göran Marby and Strawberry Team


Morning Break


Initiate Discussion on Building Blocks

Building Blocks F and C

Building Block F, Accreditation / Authentication / authorization (Demand Side)

Building Block C, User Groups (Demand Side)




Time Certain Presentation: ICANN.org CEO Göran Marby


Time Certain Presentation: Strawberry Team


Afternoon Break



Based on what we heard in the presentations, what are the implications for our work?

Other overarching questions articulated in the survey



Begin Discussions on Other Building Block Priorities

(Demand) Building Block B, Purposes

Building Block N, Financial Sustainability


Organize Emergent “New” Issues and Confirm Plans for Day 2


Wrap Up and Close




Day 2, Tuesday


Arrive at ICANN Office


Reflections from Day 1 

Recap Day 1 Outcomes, Review Agenda and Day 2 Objectives


Continue Building Blocks Discussion

Carry-over Discussions from Day 1 

(Supply) Building Block L, Query Policy SSAD

(Supply) Building Block H, Acceptable Use -- Entity Disclosing Data

Demand Side, as appropriate

Supply Side, as appropriate


Morning Break


Continue and Move toward Closure on Building Blocks Discussions


Assess Progress toward Achieving Building Block Objectives




Policy Principles

Brief Check in on Principles Overall

Confirm Priorities / Organize Discussion


Afternoon Break


Discuss “New” Emergent Issues

Continue Policy Discussions


Recap Day 2 and Organize Priorities for Day 3


Wrap Up and Close



Day 3, Wednesday


 Arrive at ICANN Office


Reflections from Days 1 and 2

Recap Day 1 &  2 Outcomes, Review Agenda and Day 3 Objectives


Specific Topics:

  • Bulk Access & Reverse Lookup (Query Policy)
  • Legal Memos


Morning Break


Review of Balancing Test


Summary of Agreements, Timeline, Process Planning, Next Steps

Outline of Data Trust effort


Lunch and Adjourn

Anyone who wishes to leave for flights can.


Meeting Audio Cast (for observers)

To join the event, click on the link: 

Listen in browser:  http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 

Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u


Day 1: Monday, 09 September 2019

Audio Recording

Part 1-AM
Part 2-PM

Zoom Recording

Part 1-AM
Part 2-PM

Chat Transcript

Part 1-AM
Part 2-PM

Day 2:Tuesday, 10 September 2019

Audio Recording

Part 1-AM

Part 2-PM

Zoom Recording

Part 1-AM

Part 2-PM

Chat Transcript

Part 1-AM

Part 2-PM

Day 3: Wednesday, 11 September 2019

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar



Day 1:  Day 1, Day1 - CRM

Apologies: Amr Elsadr (NCSG)

Alternates: Stefan Filipovic (NCSG)

Joining remotely: Rafik Dammak, Farzaneh Badii

Day 2: Day 2, Day2 - CRM 

Apologies:  Alex Deacon (IPC)

Alternate: Jennifer Gore (IPC) 

Joining remotely: Rafik Dammak, Farzaneh Badii

Day 3: Day3Day3 - CRM

Apologies: Amr Elsadr (NCSG)

Alternates: Stefan Filipovic (NCSG)

Joining remotely: Farzaneh Badii

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items

  1. Alex Deacon, Milton Mueller and other willing volunteers to draft a write up of a potential accreditation model, taking into account the Team’s F2F discussions, in advance of the Thursday, 19 September meeting. 
  2. IPC, BC, SSAC, and GAC reps to separately draft a vision for their “ideal accreditation model” in order to assist the group with what the baseline accreditation requirements could be as well as the attendant benefits of accreditation within the architecture of an SSAD by Wednesday, September 18. 
  3. Support Staff to create a table (in the form of a Google Doc) which includes a column for each lawful basis and a column for what a requesting party would be required to provide in its request, what is the expected response time, is automation likely, what are the standardized categories that may fall within that lawful basis, etc.  Following receipt of the table, the EPDP Team members to populate the contents of the table. If there are commonalities, policy recommendations can be drafted accordingly.  
  4. Support staff to create a Google Doc in which EPDP Team Members are to review and consider the types of disclosure decision models (in other words, who is making the ultimate determination to disclose non-public registration data - contracted party or ICANN) and what would make these options acceptable to the different groups by Thursday, September 19.
  5. EPDP Team to review the legal memos and come back with the most relevant points that need to be factored in as the Staff Support Team produces the 1.0 draft by Thursday, September 19.
  6. James and Mark Sv. to work together on a revised proposal for Building Block L (SSAD query policy) by Thursday, September 19. When discussing updates to Building Block L, Team members to consider if it is within the Team’s charter to continue discussing this issue.
  7. Matt C. to review the legal advice on how to perform the balancing test and update Alan Woods’ initial balancing test document into a simple guide to conduct the balancing test to be included in the next iteration of the zero draft by Thursday, September 19. 
  8. Contracted party Team members to draft letter to ICANN Board, outlining scenarios discussed, including where the disclosure decision lies within the SSAD, and inquire whether there are any options the Board would not be amenable to.

High-level Notes



Straw Proposals Presented prior to Discussion: Milton Mueller and Alex Deacon

Outcome / Agreements

  • EPDP Team did not agree on accreditation process or assignments; however, it agreed that a small group would consider the Team’s discussion during the F2F and develop a proposal for a subsequent discussion.
  • The EPDP Team agreed to separate authentication from authorization. The team did not agree that the accreditor would perform the authorization function. 


Discussion Notes


·         Remove burden from entity providing disclosure 

·         Provide code of contract or series of contracts

·         Spread liability (without diminishing protections for data subjects)

·         Provide process pathway to track data / monitoring

Who serves as accreditor

·         Entity develops request or proposal

·         Competent authority with legal basis; demonstrates consistency with Article 42 and 43

·         EPDP sets outline and principles and assessment activities



Authentication – confirm identity

Establish preliminary determination on lawful basis

Consider how to manage volume requests

NOTE: Authorization process is not necessarily with the accreditor. Sub-team will consider whether Authorization should rest with another entity or with the accreditor or unique criteria

Role: Certifying Accreditor


No Agreement, options discussed:

·         ICANN – difficult because they process of data 

·         Independent Data Trust

·         DPA

Role: Accreditation Body(ies)

·         WIPO

·         Law enforcement­–each country would have one entry point. i.e. in U.S. it might be FBI or in other countries, it would be the national country.

·         Europol and Interpol–agree this is not possible for law enforcement agencies, at least not for certain countries

·         Limit # of accrediting bodies to be able to manage system

·         Create track for entities that are not accredited

Role: Auditor

Agree that auditing is needed; unclear who should conduct audits

Role & Process: De-Accreditation

EPDP agrees that de-accreditation should be a component

Accreditor must be compliant with DPAs

Need to establish how to do this, such as:

·         Safeguards, prevent entity from setting up shop next door

·         Remedial action, i.e. may not shut down immediately, some corrective action is possible

Decision to Disclose

Joint Controller

Who Balances?

Entity with Legal Basis

Options: Who Decides?

{Note: EPDP did not decide on preferred option in LA. Group will consider options and potentially write a letter to Board to frame questions}

JC Agreement 

§  Responsibilities identified in agreement; CPs cannot increase their risk

§  Must be correct to manage liability / risk

§  Liability is clearly defined (ICANN or CPs)

§  Establish Joint and Severable Liability

Contracted Parties


Independent Data Trust


+ Most accountable to data subject

+ Has physical access to data

- Lack of consistency with hundreds of CPs applying policy to make decision to disclose

- ICANN unable to indemnify CPs (maybe, shared risk possible)

+ Bird & Bird Memo states that CPs are controllers and retain liabilities


+ Reduce risk of liability to CPs

+ Provides consistency

+ One party that performs decision and auditing role might be preferable

+ Build body of work / decisions consistently

Considerations for all Options

Standardized clearing house

Timely Response

Insurance to alleviate risk or establishing risk fund may be possible

ICANN sets rules so it has to be a joint controller


Not required by law

Goal = predictable







Building Block N, Financial Sustainability


Outcome: Staff to develop Draft 1.0 with implementation guidelines consistent with the F2F discussion. 

Note: The EPDP noted the need to make SSAD Determination and consider cost-benefit analysis before finalizing approach to financial sustainability.

Set Up

Cost of Providing and Making Available an Investigative Tool



Cost Sharing

Share cost across the system

Direct and indirect beneficiaries

Share costs across the system

CPs contribute intangible resources via in-house staff, etc. 


Look at other Models

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS: Certainty to Process ­ Cost Savings


Each stakeholder group contributed principles / ideas to ignite the conversation.


All participants have costs:

  • Central system = ICANN
  • CPs: receive, review, reply
  • Requestors: accreditation, query-making

Issue subsidies? Letting market work

RDS as basic service / core service

Passing costs to requestors: May burden victims.


  1. Any financing model should not be profit/revenue generating
  2. System should not provide financial disincentives to requestors acting on behalf of public authorities


  1. Any financial model should not be profit/revenue generating
  2. Cost Neutral and borne by beneficiaries
  3. Not a hidden tax / pass through charge to registrants / data subject
  4. Integration costs represent CPH contributions



·         Costs

·         Cost Savings

·         Accreditation costs borne by users

·         Charge / Requestor: consideration of public interest exception

·         Chares passed through to registrants seems inevitable (it’s part of the infrastructure)


Costs [potential funder]

  1. Capital / set up costs [Large Users]
  2. Accreditation costs [Flat fee per time period]
  3. Usage costs (per request) [per request fee, cost-based. Higher for non-accredited]
  4. Insurance costs [unsure]
  5. Audit / enforcements [unsure, ICANN / DPAs?]


OK for cost-sharing to vary by volume, requestor type, legal obligation, etc.

Fees on per-request basis are problematic

Must not create disincentives to costs reductions


  • No labels