Dear Councilors, At ICANN 80 we considered next steps for advancing work on the Registration Data Accuracy topic. We are sending this follow up as reminder to consider the following questions with your respective SGs to inform discussion at our July meeting: 1. Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives: In its <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/yokoyama-to-gnso-council-et-al-19oct23-en.pdf> write-up<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/yokoyama-to-gnso-council-et-al-19oct23-en.pdf>, ICANN noted limitations in processing data for the purpose of assessing accuracy and proposed two alternatives (analyzing historical audit data and engagement with Contracted Parties on ccTLD practices - see detail below). Is pursuing these alternatives worthwhile? If not, are there other alternatives for obtaining data Council should consider? 2. Consideration of Scoping Team Restart: Given the limitations with respect to access to data, would there be value in restarting the Scoping Team at this time? 3. Advancing the Topic: If restarting the Scoping Team at this time is not deemed advisable, what other ideas do you have to advance this topic given its importance to the ICANN community? Additional background and context is below for your reference. We look forward to the July meeting. Thanks, Greg Additional Background and Context: * EPDP on Temporary Specification (Reg Data) Phase 2 Team: Tasked with reviewing accuracy and the Whois Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), this team did not agree on policy recommendations for registration data accuracy. Consequently, the GNSO Council formed a scoping team to further define and scope potential issues related to accuracy and the ARS. The Scoping Team was charged with scoping issues related to accuracy and making recommendations on next steps, such as requesting an Issue Report, conducting a study, or determining no further work was needed. * Need for Data and GDPR Considerations: The Accuracy Scoping Team highlighted the need for data to inform its work. The ICANN Board suggested consulting European authorities on GDPR's impact, tasking ICANN with creating scenarios for assessing registration data accuracy and ensuring compliance with privacy rights. * ICANN Org's Four Proposed Scenarios:<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/yokoyama-to-gnso-council-et-al-19oct23-en.pdf> ICANN org proposed four scenarios for assessing registration data accuracy, considering current contractual requirements and applicable laws. These scenarios faced several challenges: * Scenario 1: Analyzing publicly available registration data was deemed infeasible due to redaction of personal data post-GDPR. * Scenario 2: Conducting a compliance audit on registrar validation and verification requirements could provide compliance insights but not confirm data accuracy and would require significant resources. * Scenario 3: Analyzing full registration data from registrars raised legal and GDPR compliance concerns. * Scenario 4: A voluntary registrar survey on data accuracy raises concerns regarding disparate participation (due to the voluntary nature) as well as potentially disproportionate or skewed data. * ICANN's Proposed Alternatives in light of the limitations with the proposed scenarios: * Historical Data from Compliance Audits: ICANN Compliance's existing audit program data from 2016 to 2023 could be summarized in a detailed report, providing insights into registrar compliance with validation and verification requirements in the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreement-21jan24-en.html#rdds-accuracy> RDDS Accuracy Specification<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreement-21jan24-en.html#rdds-accuracy>. (While assessing the viability and value that a targeted contractual compliance audit would provide as envisioned in Scenario 2, ICANN determined that ICANN Compliance's existing audit program may provide a more suitable and less costly avenue for assessing current validation and verification requirements under the RAA.) * Engagement with Contracted Parties on European ccTLD Practices: Reviewing European ccTLD identity verification practices could offer insights into potential requirements for accuracy policies, considering evolving European legislation. These steps are intended to address the accuracy challenges while navigating legal frameworks and resource limitations. This engagement, led by ICANN staff, will focus on the likelihood that policymakers may put forward requirements for accuracy of registration data, including verification practices, through legislation.