2018-07-06 Small team EPDP scope/composition call

Notes/ Action Items

Notes – Small Team Composition / Scope meeting on 6 July 2018 

• Consider changing bullet point dealing with consensus from 'shall' to 'must'.
• Consider removing 'noting that .....upsets that balance'.
• Consider clarifying GNSO groups with 'GNSO SG and Cs at Council level'
• Consider adding the numbers to CPH and CSG and NCSG representation.
• Lack to reach consensus of an SO/AC should not be an obstacle for others to reach consensus and as such not count as a 'no' or a 'yes'. Clarify that abstention should be considered a 'zero' in the scale of support or no support or just remove it and clarify that if a member is not able to express a position, this should not hold up a consensus call. Reference to abstention can be removed. If no one objects to consensus, citing the need for further work, consensus shall be deemed reached. The language was intended to underscore that if a non-GNSO SO/AC can't reach consensus themselves, it shall not block the rest from reaching consensus. Consider adding " 'if a member is not able to express a position on a consensus call, this will not hold up a consensus call if other members are able to express a position on behalf of their respective groups'.
• If SG/Cs are expected to represent their membership, SO/ACs should be held to the same standard.
• Consider whether ALAC should have 2 reps to be able to balance the work load? Similar for SSAC and ccNSO? Note that significant amount of work is expected to take place which may be difficult to manage for 1 member/liaison. Proposal to keep GAC 3 + 3 but offer 2 + 2 to other SO/ACs (ALAC, SSAC, ccNSO). Principal agreement from small team to move forward with this proposal.

Action item #1: staff to circulate notes and update charter language for small team review (COMPLETED).

Scope:

• Recognition that it would be reasonable to kick off a PDP with 2 phases - first one with focus on temp spec with objective of Initial Report by BCN meeting following which the group would pivot to other issues such as the unified access model that would be part of phase 2 which would be informed by phase 1. Sufficient substance would need to be in Initial Report to start phase 2 work.
• BC is not requesting that unified access model is part of the EPDP as it is not part of the Temp Spec or annex.. Following language is part of Temp Spec: Consistent process for continued access to Registration Data, including non-public data, for users with a legitimate purpose, until the time when a final accreditation and access mechanism is fully operational, on a mandatory basis for all contracted parties.
• BC would prefer parallel phase instead of subsequent phase.
• Also need to factor in latest letter from EDPB.
• Could phasing / timeline be decided by EPDP Team itself? Belongs in scope so Council should deal with it.  Similarly, EPDP Team should not lose time over it.
• Need to see on paper what phasing could/should look like. Are phases dependent or not?
• Important parts of the Temp Spec relate to access - that is part of phase 1 Temp Spec discussion. Need to confirm whether or not those obligations continue beyond 25 May 2019.
• Need a strawman on parallel /phasing of this EPDP as soon as possible to see if we can get something sorted in our next call on Monday.

Action item #2: Staff to try and integrate and/or provide a general overview of the different proposals that have been put forward ahead of the next meeting on Monday.