Hi Caitlin and everyone, I wanted to follow up on one part of this email: "During a dedicated meeting on this topic, some IRT members expressed an opinion that YES, it was the intention of the EPDP Team to remove this current requirement (of collecting and retaining billing contact data) and make it optional." I think it is worth noting that no members of the IRT expressed the opposite view, either on calls or in writing on list. Instead, all the input from the IRT thus far has supported the position that the omission is a result of a drafting error. I think that may be helpful context for the Council when evaluating this issue at our next meeting. Kind Regards, Prudence Malinki Head of Industry Relations, Markmonitor Skype: Malinkip T +44 207 433 4869 Time zone: GMT/BST [cid:image001.png@01DB6912.87FDB300] From: Caitlin Tubergen via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 27 November 2024 22:43 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] EPDP Phase 1 RegData Implementation - Billing Contact Issue Summary [CAUTION External Email] Dear Councilors, During the ICANN81 GNSO Council Wrap-Up<https://icann81.sched.com/event/1p2Gu/gnso-council-wrap-up>, Thomas Rickert provided an update regarding the implementation of EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 recommendations. Thomas is the current GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT). For background, the Registration Data Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of 21 August 2025. The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-...> do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> also makes no reference to billing contact data. Billing contact data, however, is referenced in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreemen...> (RAA) in § 3.4.1.3 and in the Data Retention Specification<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreemen...> in §1.1.2 - §1.1.5. The billing contact data is also referenced in the existing Registrar Data Escrow Specifications<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf>. ICANN's publication of updated Registrar Data Escrow Specifications<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-14aug24-en.pdf> in August triggered a discussion within the EPDP Phase 1 IRT regarding the Registration Data Policy's intended impact on the RAA requirements concerning the billing contact data fields. Generally speaking, unless in conflict with or otherwise modified by a policy recommendation, current contractual requirements and consensus policy requirements remain in place following the publication of a new policy. For that reason, ICANN org informed the IRT on 8 August 2024 that billing contact data must still be collected and retained pursuant to current RAA requirements. In response, some registrar members of the IRT expressed the view that the absence of a reference to billing contact data was a drafting error, and the EPDP Team intended for the collection of billing contact data to be optional and not mandatory. The registrar IRT members noted the reference to "billing contact" within charter question b1, which provides, "b1) What data should registrars be required to collect for each of the following contacts: Registrant, Tech, Admin, Billing?" Because billing contact is referenced in this charter question but the EPDP Team did not provide a recommendation regarding mandatory (or optional) collection of the billing contact, the registrar position is that the billing contact is no longer required to be collected. On 25 September 2024, there was a special meeting of the IRT<https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2024-09-25+Registration+Data+Poli...> to discuss the topic of billing contact. While no objection to the registrar view was raised during the special meeting, it is unclear at this stage whether this is a broadly supported view of the IRT, as the majority of stakeholder groups did not have IRT members present at the special meeting. Specifically, members from the BC, GAC, IPC, ISPCP, IPC, NCSG, and SSAC were not in attendance<https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2024-09-25+Registration+Data+Poli...>. It is worth noting that billing contact information is not referenced in the Temporary Specification, nor is it part of the RDDS specification in the RAA, so it could be argued that billing contact data was not in scope for EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 policy development. It could also be argued that the drafting error was in the EPDP charter, as billing contact should not have been referenced since it is not part of the Temporary Specification. It is also worth noting that there are other elements within the RAA and Data Retention Specification that were not part of the Temporary Specification and are still required. Thomas provided a high-level overview during the wrap-up session, and noted that some IRT members believe this drafting error is noncontroversial. However, Thomas noted that in the interest of transparency, all Councilors should consult with their respective groups to ensure that others are properly informed and agree with the interpretation raised by the registrars within the IRT. Thomas has also requested that further discussion of billing contact data within the Registration Data Policy be added as a discussion item to the GNSO Council's December meeting. Accordingly, please check in with your groups regarding the treatment of billing contact data in the Registration Data Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>. Specifically, does your group believe that (1) billing contact data was in scope for the EPDP Temp Spec policy development? If yes, does your group agree that because billing contact data was within the EPDP Team's scope, (2) there was a drafting error in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report because the intention of the recommendations, by not including a recommendation concerning the collection, escrow, etc of billing contact data was that the collection and retention of billing contact data should be optional and not mandatory? Note: If, as a matter of ICANN Consensus Policy this was the intended outcome, this interpretation would change current contractual requirements for registrars. We invite Thomas and other councilors to provide additional context. Please feel free to provide thoughts via the list in advance of the December meeting, and please be prepared to discuss next steps during the 19 December Council meeting. Kind regards, and Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate, Caitlin
