Thank you Rafik.

I realise that I have not share with the council the notes I had prepared directly after our last call.

I promised than a written version of my brief progress report with the IRT on this matter.

Dear GNSO Councillors

As I briefly reported during our ICANN 68 meeting/call, following our last GNSO call I engaged the IRT on Phase I to gather every party’s position.

I was asked by the Registries and Registrars to included 2 pre-existing documents:

• Marc Anderson’s 20 Dec 2020 paper : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/2019-December/000387.html
  and corresponding comments
• The letter sent by the CPH sent to the GNSO on 18 May 2020 : https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/cph-to-gnso-council-18may20-en.pdf

The IPC and BC propose a joint paper:

• Alex Deacon’s submission of 17 Jun 2020 : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/2020-June/000498.html

The IPT (Staff) has offered input in the “One Doc” (the IRT working document not publicly available)

The Board offered guidance 

• EPDP Phase 1 Final Report Scorecard: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/epdp-scorecard-15may19-en.pdf
• During a 22 Apr 2020 IRT Call joined by Becky Burr, Chris Disspain and Maarten Booterman.
  https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2020-04-22+Registration+Data+Policy+Implementation+IRT+Meeting

Context:

Recommendation 7 pertains to the transfer of data from Registrars to Registries. It reads:

The EPDP Team recommends that the specifically-identified data elements under “[t]ransmission of registration data from Registrar to Registry”, as illustrated in the aggregate data elements workbooks, must be transferred from registrar to registry provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place. In the aggregate, these data elements are: 

[followed by the list of data points that may be transferred, some marked as Mandatory (technical fields), others as Optional (contact fields)]

Ref: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf

Positions (as per my understanding):

A point of contention exists on the fact that “an appropriate legal basis” may or not exist.

• RrSG + RySG – favour transcribing the Recommendation wording as is with the understanding that legal basis is not established in all cases.
• IPC + BC – have no objection to the Recommendation wording with the understanding that legal basis is established in all cases, in particular with respect to the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy.
• Other members of the IRT – did not choose to submit comments to this issue beyond Amr Elsadr’s approval of Marc Anderson’s 20 Dec 2020 paper referenced above.

• IPT – of the view that legal basis is established in all cases, and suggests to remove “provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place.”
• The ICANN Board – reminded the IRT (via the Scorecard and 22 Apr 2020 call, that Rec 7 could not “repeal or overturn existing Consensus Policy including, in this case, the Thick WHOIS Policy”, at least not without GNSO Council oversight and approval.

• All parties agree that through mechanisms provided by Recommendation 27 existing consensus policy, including the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy, should be reviewed to reflect such aspects as the reduced set of contact fields in the data set.

These positions were by and large confirmed during the last IRT call directly preceding our GNSO call.

Kindly,

Sebastien Ducos
Neustar, Inc. / Senior Client Services Manager
Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 
Office: +61 3 9886 3710 Mobile: +61 449 623 491 / home.neustar

Follow Neustar : Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 8 July 2020 at 10:51 am
To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to GNSO Council Co-chairs - EPDP Phase 1, Rec 7

hi all,

please find attached the letter board in response to our letter on EPDP phase 1 recommendation 7.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ---------
De : Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org>
Date: mer. 8 juil. 2020 à 08:48
Subject: [gnso-chairs] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to GNSO Council Co-chairs - EPDP Phase 1, Rec 7
To: gnso-chairs@icann.org <gnso-chairs@icann.org>, gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>, Secretary <secretary@icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team@icann.org>

Dear Pam Little and Rafik Dammak,

Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman regarding the EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 7 in response to your letter of 29 May providing clarity to guide the implementation.

Thank you and best regards,

Wendy Profit

ICANN

Board Operations Senior Manager

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094