Dear Councilors,

During the December Council meeting, the Council requested ICANN org to provide additional background on the question from the EPDP Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT) concerning the billing contact. 

In addition to the background provided in the email of 27 November, it might be helpful to highlight how billing contact is distinct from some of the other contact elements - namely the contact elements in RDDS (formerly referred to as Whois). 

In what way(s) is the billing contact treated differently than other contacts including administrative, technical, etc.?

• Billing contact is referenced in the RAA only with respect to the retention of data, not the display (or publication) of data via RDDS or RDAP. This is distinct from other data elements referenced in the RAA, e.g., administrative contact and technical contact, both of which were required to be displayed as part of the RDDS specification of the RAA. (See Section 3.3 and 3.4 of the RAA.) 
• Additionally, the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, which the EPDP Team was chartered to review, includes no mention of billing contact, but it does include references to registrant contact, administrative contact, and technical contact details. (“Consistent with ICANN's stated objective to comply with the GDPR, while maintaining the existing WHOIS system to the greatest extent possible, the Temporary Specification maintains robust collection of Registration Data (including Registrant, Administrative, and Technical contact information), but restricts most Personal Data to layered/tiered access.”)

Was billing contact in scope for the EPDP Phase 1 (Temp Spec) to provide policy recs on?

Some have noted that YES, this was in scope because the EPDP Phase 1 (Temp Spec) Charter included the following charter question, “b1) What data should registrars be required to collect for each of the following contacts: Registrant, Tech, Admin, Billing?”

Some have noted that NO, this data element was not in scope as billing contact was neither part of the Temporary Specification, nor was it part of RDDS data as defined in the RAA.

Was the omission of a reference to billing contact data a drafting error of the EPDP (Temp Spec) Team? In other words, did the EPDP Team intend to change the current required retention of billing contact data and make it optional?

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.

However, it is unclear to ICANN org whether this is a broadly supported view of the IRT and/or if this is a position supported by the GNSO Council. 

What is the Council being asked to do now?

The Council is being asked to provide guidance to ICANN org on two questions:

1. Does the Council confirm billing contact was in scope for the EPDP on the Temp Spec - Phase 1 Team?
2. Does the Council confirm:

a. the collection of billing contacts by registrars should continue to be required as per current RAA requirements because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, did not mean to change this requirement, OR

b. the collection of billing contacts by registrars should become optional because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, meant to change the RAA requirement?

What happens next? 

If the Council answers YES to Questions 1 and 2(b), the Council is advised to acknowledge its guidance and conclusion in writing to ICANN org. If ICANN org receives this confirmation from the Council that it concludes that billing contact data is no longer required to be collected, retained, or transferred to the data escrow agent, ICANN org will begin the process of updating (removing) current requirements related to billing contact.

If the Council answers NO to either Question 1 or 2(b), the current RAA requirement for registrars to collect, retain, and transfer billing contact data to the data escrow agent will remain in place.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance by addressing any additional questions or concerns.

Best regards,

Caitlin