2020-03-17 EPDP- Phase 2 call #45

Notes/ Action Items

High-level Notes/Actions

1. Beginning Thursday, the EPDP Team will use the webinar capability in Zoom, similar to ICANN67 virtual sessions. All EPDP Team members will be promoted to Panelists and interact as normal, but this allows for a better experience for observers. If any EPDP Team member encounters technical issues with the Zoom webinar room over the next two weeks, please relay the concerns to Support Staff.
2. Following concerns expressed by some EPDP Team members regarding the upcoming public comment deadline, Janis proposed the following compromise solution:
   1. The deadline for submission of public comments will remain Monday, 23 March, and we encourage all those who have their comments ready to please submit by the original deadline.
   2. However, the EPDP Team will publish its Addendum to the Initial Report on Tuesday, 24 March, and community members who were unable to provide their public comment by the original deadline are invited to provide their feedback on the Initial Report by the addendum deadline of Sunday, 3 May.
   3. Any groups who plan to submit their comments after the first deadline will be asked to email gnso-secs@icann.org by Tuesday, 31 March to flag the late submission and allow the EPDP Team to plan accordingly.
   4. Following the original deadline of Monday, 23 March, the EPDP Team will begin reviewing the submitted comments, and we encourage those who are able to submit their comments by the deadline to please do so.
3. The EPDP Team agreed to publish the proposed language re: the OCTO purpose in the Initial Report Addendum.
4. The Small Team discussed the Financial Questions and Assumptions document and will present the draft to the plenary team on Thursday, 19 March. 

EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #48

Proposed Agenda

Tuesday, 17 March 2020 at 14.00 UTC

1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)

      2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair)

      3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes)

        a. Zoom webinar format going forward for meetings

- Based on experiences for the remote ICANN67 meetings, ICANN experimented with the webinar format, where members are promoted to panelist.

- For each EPDP Team meeting, approximately 15-25 participants will use the audio cast, which many have reported to be a poor experience. Participants using the audiocast cannot see the room or the chat that is going on – using the webinar room allows participants to see the room and chat and does not seem to affect the deliberations of the EPDP Team.

- Leadership proposes to continue to test this format for the next 2-3 weeks to see if it is successful

- The licensing for the webinar format is already folded into the Zoom enterprise agreement, so there would be a cost savings if the audiocast is no longer needed

        b. Public comment proceeding

• Public comment closes in 6 days, and we have received 5 complete submissions so far, none of which are from the primary stakeholder groups or constituencies.
• For each of the text responses, there is a 2000-character limit. Recommendation: if you are using a word processor like Microsoft Word, you can double-check the word count. (2000 characters is approximately four pages.)
• If for any reason, you encounter an error – please email Caitlin and copy Berry right away.
• 2000-character limit – if one comment is over 2000 characters, what is the procedure for that?
• Populate the response up to 2000 characters or what you can. If you encounter an error, email Caitlin and Berry, and they can input the long response into the form. You may also delete the long entry and continue with the form. Support Staff can manually enter the long response, but please use the character count on word processing tools.
• Request to extend the public comment period due to COVID-19 and the effects of individuals who will be unable to submit public comments
• We are not in a position to extend the public comment period if we want to meet the proposed deadline.
• Is there a middle ground? There is a second public comment period that is concurrent with the review of other public comment period. Is it possible to accept comments on the entire report for those that were unable to make the first deadline?
• Chair: comment period for SSAD will end as suggested on 24 March. The Team will start examining those submissions following that date. EPDP Team to publish the addendum and the deadline for response to priority 2 items is 3 May. Those who were unable to meet the original deadline can submit comments by the second deadline.
• If the group wishes to change this date, the Team will need to submit a project change request to the GNSO Council
• From a staff perspective, as soon as the public comment period closes, support staff will be working around the clock to the prepare the comments for the Team’s consumption
• Chair suggestion: technically, the public comment period will be closed 24 March and the Team will examine what has been received by that time. Allow those that could not submit for some reason to do so with the comments on the addendum, and they will be examined to the extent possible to meet its deadlines.
• Janis cannot stay on as chair longer than 22 June
• One additional item the Team has not addressed in detail is the evolutionary mechanism – Janis has asked Support Staff to analyze the conversations to date and provide something ideally by early next week – specifically consider functions of the systems, M.O. of the system, and the third is the composition of the mechanism
• Was there an action item for the Team to deliver feedback on the issue now?
• If any Team members have specific contributions on the mechanism now, you are welcome to submit them to the list.

      4. Potential OCTO Purpose (priority 2) (15 minutes)

        a. Review ‘cannot live with’ comments received, if any

        b. Review minor edits received, if any

• No minor edits received

        c. Confirm language for inclusion in the addendum to the Initial Report

• It would make sense to not include OCTO – that is an ICANN term – also, how can additional purposes be added later unless through an additional PDP?
• The Board has given a lot of thought to SSR – the board is comfortable not having an OCTO purpose, provided there is a Purpose 2 similar to what was discussed last week
• This is a legacy issue from Phase 1 that we are attempting to close
• The Team seems to be conflating OCTO purpose with ICANN org’s remit and purpose 2
• Question re: Purpose 2 – will the proposed text be rubberstamped, or will there be proposed worksheets involved with that? Favor the approach of documenting the processing activities.
• The Team already has a worksheet on Purpose 2 and a letter from Board re: purpose 2 that seemed to be broadly supported by the Team.
• The Team will discuss Purpose 2 in detail during Thursday’s meeting
• OCTO Purpose – GDPR provides a privileged position for research
• Can the Team live with this language as published in the addendum?
• No objection

      5. Accuracy and Whois ARS (priority 2) (15 minutes) (if guidance is received from GNSO Council prior to the meeting)

        a. Consider GNSO Council feedback

• There has been some evolution in the GNSO Council – Council is examining whether this issue is going to be considered in scope by the Council
• Proposal to have a scoping team within the Council further discuss this issue and take it out of Phase 2 due to the timing and complexity of the issue
• Proposal to submit the pending legal questions so that the information can be helpful for the scoping team’s future work on accuracy
• EPDP Team response:
• GAC is disappointed with this decision and substantively disagrees with it, noting that accuracy is clearly within scope
• Reminder of how the ARS came about – the first WHOIS review team made a recommendation how accuracy can be improved – this hasn’t been measured in 2 years.
• Understand and respect that members have grievances with the state of WHOIS accuracy, however, support the Council’s decision
• This cannot find consensus, and including this in Phase 2 will blow up the process, which would be a shame considering the effort that has gone into this
• The Team agreed to further discuss this in Phase 2 – this is a GDPR compliance issue. There could be a way to address some of the issues – assuming the Team will not reach compromise is disappointing given the compromises the Team has already reached.
• Everyone understands that accurate data is good, and no one is advocating for inaccurate data. GDPR obligations for accuracy continue to apply to contracted parties; those obligations do not go away b/c there is no specific policy recommendation for Phase 2. The Team has not agreed to discuss additional policy obligations for Phase 2; all existing obligations are still in place.
• There is a recommendation from the Council to submit the legal memo on accuracy, but the intent is for the EPDP team to submit the pending legal questions on accuracy to outside counsel
• Without measurement, it is really hard to understand the problem.

       b. Confirm next steps

      6. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):

       a. Thursday 19 March at 14.00 UTC. Topics to be addressed: Purpose 2 (Consider Board Liaison input), Automation Use Cases.

       b. Confirm action items

       c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any