Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

I strongly support what Steve said.

I disagree with what Steve said. Any resulting policy is binding on the CPH, so their positions, statements, and rationales need to be listened to and accommodated. Not simply rejected in favor of goals that are unachievable, questionable, or not possible.

@Mark- not policy, but guidance that should be followed. So still something that CPH issues and concerns need to be acknowledged rather than dismissed as has happened repeatedly in Phase 2a

Staff is squaring the circle every day

+1 Volker

Staff are amazing

+1 Staff are amazing

+1 Staff are awesome

Repeating an earlier post, and many thanks to Terri for the perpetual reminder to include attendees (blush). I may get this figured out before the EPDP ends. I think we should not force staff to work over the holiday weekend, because the report is far from finished despite the Herculean effort….not their fault

I believe the intro has been updated

If a group hasn't yet spoken on this topic, please get in queue.

+1 staff did a difficult and excellent job

Pushback and rhetoric that we employ doing our calls and debates are appropriate. But when we are publishing a report of outcomes, there is no benefit to trashing each other’s positions.

+1 Kieth consensus is possible

Agree with Steve.

Friday tomorrow or next week?

Friday tomorrow

Thanks Caitlin. Understood.

All, as we consider Agenda #4, please again consider what we need to include in the Initial Report to generate meaningful input from the public comment period.

BC supports the SSAC suggestion

So "extensible" means the ability to extend/enlarge the field as needed in future?

Right - if we have some other (future) value that makes sense here, as a “registrant type”, can we do that?

Laureen, I think so? Or, if we look atthe Wikipedia definition of EPP, they call it "flexible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Provisioning_Protocol

Thanks for that, Sarah - helpful terminology reference.

SSAC agrees strongly the filed is not dispositive with respect to whether the registrant data is to be published nor whether the status should be published. These are three distinct ideas. That said, having a place to record Legal/Natural/Unspecified is appropriate.

How hard will it be to figure this out later….add a field when we have more clarity,

Alan and Stephanie are making the same point.

acronym soup!

Agree with Marc that providing those three options obscures the complexity of the relevant question (is there PI in this registration)

“Unspecified” is ok with SSAC

+1 to "unspecified." And agree to SSAC's proposal.

+1 to "Unspecified"

Why do we need a question in this regard?

legal - natural - unspecified

Personal information present?

Agreed Laureen

@Stephanie. I CHANGED that

@Volker at this point the field is referring to the registrant type only

Yes, but why should it do that?

Thanks, all, for helpful feedback on our suggestion.

The personal/non-personal distinction only applies/is relevant for registrants who have self-identified as legal persons.

I am dropping for another meeting, handing off to Steve C at this point - thanks, all!

I understand that Berry, yet that information is ultimately more relevant for disclosure decisions

@Volker differentiation would never be possible based only on the registrant type. However, numerous benefits were stated to why this distinction is a necessary first step

@Volker - was not a statement, but a copy paste of the footnote text into the chat. I should have prefaced that.

Understood, thanks Berry ;-)

No yeah - thanks

I didn't mean i'd heard you saying that, but, I know we all have concerns with providing only partial sections of GDPR or our B&B advice because it is often so interdependent

+1 Sarah

Also Rec#12 about Org field, that if RNH agrees to publish.

What is the point of differentiating if we do not then use it???

There is always the option of NOT differntiating

So are you saying that in order to follow the guidance - it's ALL the guidance including the MUST or don't follow it at all? That seems odd.

@Keith, NO, that is not what I was saying.

Are we still debating SHOULD? I can't tell.

@Mark yes

What is the benefit of diff. if we do not act on it??

Sorry, I don't speak in legal terms

Perhaps we can replace both "must" or "should" with "are expected to"

Aside from whether the word will be MUST or SHOULD, I see no conflict in saying "In order to follow the guidance is that if you do something, you MUST do it as follows - or else you are not actually following the guidance"

[ignore typos, sorry]

that works for me Keith.

thank you!

I could live with it

Thank you Jan for pointing out the many conditionals already embedded in this guidance.

old hand

Just to note "MUST" conflicts with our own advice (see #7):7. Distinguishing between legal and natural person registrants alone may not be351 dispositive of how the information should be treated (made public or masked), as352 the data provided by legal persons may include personal data that is protected353 under data protection law, such as GDPR.

MarcA, I don't think so. 346 already includes "legal" AND "no personal data"

Are we making it up as we are going along?

We _must_ follow the rules or there will be chaos

@Volker, if the target is not good effective policy, I have no interest in spending my personal time on it.

Procedurally, the work of any PDP WG is necessarily limited by its charter and scope.

The proposal would e guidance.

"be"

Laureen beat me to it

Thank you to all

Meetings on 1 June and 3 June. Invites sent out.

Bye