- Comments-epdp-2-policy-recs-board-08feb21

Tucows' response to EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations
by Reg Levy March 31, 2021

March 31, 2021

-- Reg Levy Head of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7

1 0

Namecheap, Inc. Comment to EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Owen Smigelski March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Hello, Please see attached the comment on behalf of Namecheap, Inc. to EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for ICANN Board consideration. Regards, Owen ____________________ Owen Smigelski Head of ICANN Compliance & Relations Namecheap, Inc.

1 0

RrSG response to EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Zoe Bonython March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), please find the attached RrSG response to the EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for Board Consideration. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment for Board consideration of EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Attached and below is the Business Constituency (BC) comment for Board consideration of EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations. Members of the ICANN Board of Directors: The BC maintains its position that the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report fails to deliver a System for Standardized Access (SSAD) that meets the needs of its users. (see Minority Statement of the Business Constituency and the Intellectual Property Constituency on the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2020/2020_07July_…>) On a substantive level, the SSAD proposed by the Final Report lacks a centralized disclosure mechanism and provides no meaningful framework regarding when disclosure should occur, leaving this determination up to the discretion of over two thousand separate contracted parties. It also fails to provide guidance to contracted parties as to how to address data accuracy and distinctions between legal and natural persons. The SSAD is also inflexible, lacking the ability to evolve with updates in data privacy laws, including pending legislation that may have a significant impact on obligations to disclose registrant data. On a procedural level, the SSAD proposed by the Final Report lacks the support of its intended users, lacks consensus among EPDP members and the ICANN community at large, and ultimately fails to serve the public interest by failing to support the security and stability of the Internet. Together with the views held by the Intellectual Property Constituency, Government Advisory Committee, the At-Large Advisory Committee, and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, we have collectively noted that the EPDP work to date falls dramatically short of ICANN’s goal and that the Board must intervene in order realign the system for standardized access with the interests of the community and the public. To be clear, the Board must not hide behind majority approval within the GNSO Council as a proxy for community consensus given the strong opposition to the SSAD amongst its intended users within the EPDP. Nor should the Board use the GNSO Council’s vote as an excuse to move forward in dereliction of ICANN’s core value of protecting the global public interest. The inability of Internet users to identify with whom they are doing business with online, and the increasingly pervasive inability of law enforcement, cybersecurity, and legal professionals to identify criminal actors online through their domain name registration data, severely undermines the security and stability of the Internet. This comment is not made lightly and is not offered to the Board as hyperbole; if the Board approves the SSAD in its current form, then BC members will not use it and will recommend that other commercial entities also not use it. Furthermore, a decision by the Board to move forward in spite of all of the stated community opposition to the SSAD will serve as a strong signal to national regulators that more concerted intervention and direct regulation through administrative, legislative and judicial means are all necessary within the domain name industry. Put another way, the EPDP’s experimentation in providing legitimate access to non-public registration data will be viewed as a failure of the multistakeholder model, and it will be taken entirely out of the community’s hands. The Board has repeatedly insisted that it has done all it can to drive consensus and the law is the law. Indeed, it is. But rather than preventing ICANN from acting on a system of standardized access, the law as written presently in the GDPR and as contemplated in NIS2 do not require that data protection must conflict with public safety and cybersecurity needs. The European Commission has clearly provided ICANN with a roadmap for striking a balance between these interests, stating: “ICANN and the community can develop a unified access model that applies to all registries and registrars and provides a stable, predictable, and workable method for accessing non-public gTLD registration data for users with a legitimate interest or other legal basis as provided for in the General Data Protection Regulation.” This is precisely the Business Constituency’s aim - to support privacy protection for personal data, and to strike a balance between the individual right of privacy and other legitimate interests. Yet, instead of engaging in the work to outline the parameters of these interests, the Phase 2 Final Report merely provides for a central location to submit requests. It is a mere ticketing service that does not provide any meaningful access or disclosure function; as such, the SSAD will almost certainly become a black hole. Expensive window dressing that no one actually uses. We view the Board’s inaction to date as an abdication of leadership. This letter is a last attempt to urge the Board to correct this misstep, and to fulfill its obligations to the community and the public interest. This can only be done by remanding the SSAD recommendations back to the EPDP for further work to properly define a model for access to registration data that ensures that disclosure is proportionate and limited to the legitimate interest of the requesting party. Anything less is nothing at all. -- This comment was drafted by John Berard and Andy Abrams, and was approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

IPC Comment
by King, Brian March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Hello, Please find the IPC Comment attached. Please kindly confirm receipt when possible. Thank you. Brian J. King He/Him/His Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group T +1 443 761 3726 Time zone: US Eastern Time clarivate.com<http://www.clarivate.com> | Accelerating innovation Follow us on LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/clarivate>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/clarivate?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr…>, Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/clarivate/> and Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/clarivateofficial/?hl=en> Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.

1 0

RySG Comments on the EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Elizabeth Bacon March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Hello, On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), please find attached our comments on the EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for Board Consideration. In the interest of time, we did not conduct a vote on these comments. We did discuss them on our mailing list and during a biweekly conference call, and no member opposed their submission. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best, Beth Bacon Elizabeth Bacon | RySG Vice Chair, Policy

1 0

INTA Comments EPDP2 Policy Recs to the Board
by Lori Schulman March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Dear ICANN Organization, Attached please find INTA's comments regarding the EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations for Board Consideration. Kindly post this correspondence to the Board List. Please free to reach out to me if you have any questions regarding INTA's submission. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 700 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org<http://www.inta.org/> [A picture containing drawing Description automatically generated]<https://www.inta.org/Pages/Home.aspx?utm_source=General%20Marketing&utm_med…> Find us on: [cid:image002.png@01D7254F.84B92810] Twitter<https://twitter.com/INTA> [Description: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=69899> [Description: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/GoINTA?ref=ts> [cid:image005.png@01D7254F.84B92810]

1 0

NCSG Comment on EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Tomslin Samme-Nlar March 30, 2021

March 30, 2021

Hello, On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), I am sending NCSG's comments on this proceeding. Please find our comments attached. Regards, Tomslin

1 0