Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team
Dear GNSO Council, The Registration Data Policy IRT has met today to review its position following the GAC letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf> of 23 August 2023 and the RrSG letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf> of 8 September 2023 offering to remove the contentious Urgent Request wording to allow for a speeding publication of the Policy. The IRT going back to the original Recommendation 18 requesting the IRT to “consider” Urgent Requests believes that in essence it has considered the topic and therefore is able to remove the wording from the final policy without requiring further input from either the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board. The IRT also notes that in the spirit of the above mentioned letters, the issue of Urgent Requests is a topic that must be resolved and asks the GNSO Council to consider it and relevantly prioritize it in its work. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_905115032] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Hi All, Thomas In working on the draft response to the GAC Communique language on the issue of the timing of urgent requests for registration data, I note the update below that Sebastien Ducos sent to the Council mailing list on 26 October. I have not seen any reaction to this - I suspect that the timing of this, right at the end of the Hamburg meeting, may have something to do with that. It appears from Sebastien’s update that the IRT would like Council’s input on this issue of urgent requests. I therefore sought feedback from my IPC colleagues, which is as follows: * EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 states as follows: o “The EPDP Team recommends that criteria for a Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure and the requirements for acknowledging receipt of a request and response to such request will be defined as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations but will include at a minimum [emphasis added]: … ● Timeline & Criteria for Registrar and Registry Operator Responses - Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure: … ● A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation]. The EPDP Team recommends that the above be implemented and further work on defining these criteria commences as needed and as soon as possible.” * For convenience, the EPDP P1 Final Report is here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GRYZqjLsQut5Q1WVmcCpkx6pybhYqdyEVKyh74sevYcdo2FlklnsDOLF13e3GDNgwzLZBKixyn37WaLYk6HE$>, and Rec#18 starts p59. * It appears, if the IPC understands Sebastien correctly, that the IRT has taken the view that EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 only requires the IRT to “consider” urgent requests and that, as such, the policy recommendation does not require a process and timing for the handling of urgent requests actually to be implemented, provided that the IRT has considered this issue (which it believes that it has). * That interpretation does not align with the working group’s intent on Rec#18, and nor is it a reasonable interpretation of the words as written in that recommendation. The intent of Rec#18 is that the IRT should determine a time limit within which Registries and Registrars must consider and accommodate urgent requests, not that it should discuss the matter and decide not to do anything, presumably because it falls into the “too hard” category. Perhaps there is some nuance or additional information that we are not presently seeing. I have been instructed therefore to request that Council receive a briefing on this aspect of the implementation effort at its next meeting. Hopefully this is something that Thomas, as the Council Liaison, could help facilitate? I will add this to the agenda working document. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 Follow us on Linkedin<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 1:20 PM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; gnso-secs@icann.org; irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org Subject: [council] Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team Dear GNSO Council, The Registration Data Policy IRT has met today to review its position following the GAC letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf> of 23 August 2023 and the RrSG letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf> of 8 September 2023 offering to remove the contentious Urgent Request wording to allow for a speeding publication of the Policy. The IRT going back to the original Recommendation 18 requesting the IRT to “consider” Urgent Requests believes that in essence it has considered the topic and therefore is able to remove the wording from the final policy without requiring further input from either the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board. The IRT also notes that in the spirit of the above mentioned letters, the issue of Urgent Requests is a topic that must be resolved and asks the GNSO Council to consider it and relevantly prioritize it in its work. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_905115032] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Hi Susan, Thank you for this. I have also noted some confusion around the status of Urgent Requests. The Board was also considering this issue along with ICANN staff. Yesterday I also requested an update from the Board and/or ICANN on their understanding of where this work stands and what next steps might be. I do not think the Council has been formally asked for their feedback at this stage, but we will seek to clarify (or find those empowered to clarify) by next council meeting. Thanks, Greg From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Susan Payne via council Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 6:50 AM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.law> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi All, Thomas In working on the draft response to the GAC Communique language on the issue of the timing of urgent requests for registration data, I note the update below that Sebastien Ducos sent to the Council mailing list on 26 October. I have not seen any reaction to this - I suspect that the timing of this, right at the end of the Hamburg meeting, may have something to do with that. It appears from Sebastien’s update that the IRT would like Council’s input on this issue of urgent requests. I therefore sought feedback from my IPC colleagues, which is as follows: * EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 states as follows: o “The EPDP Team recommends that criteria for a Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure and the requirements for acknowledging receipt of a request and response to such request will be defined as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations but will include at a minimum [emphasis added]: … ● Timeline & Criteria for Registrar and Registry Operator Responses - Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure: … ● A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation]. The EPDP Team recommends that the above be implemented and further work on defining these criteria commences as needed and as soon as possible.” * For convenience, the EPDP P1 Final Report is here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GRYZqjLsQut5Q1WVmcCpkx6pybhYqdyEVKyh74sevYcdo2FlklnsDOLF13e3GDNgwzLZBKixyn37WaLYk6HE$>, and Rec#18 starts p59. * It appears, if the IPC understands Sebastien correctly, that the IRT has taken the view that EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 only requires the IRT to “consider” urgent requests and that, as such, the policy recommendation does not require a process and timing for the handling of urgent requests actually to be implemented, provided that the IRT has considered this issue (which it believes that it has). * That interpretation does not align with the working group’s intent on Rec#18, and nor is it a reasonable interpretation of the words as written in that recommendation. The intent of Rec#18 is that the IRT should determine a time limit within which Registries and Registrars must consider and accommodate urgent requests, not that it should discuss the matter and decide not to do anything, presumably because it falls into the “too hard” category. Perhaps there is some nuance or additional information that we are not presently seeing. I have been instructed therefore to request that Council receive a briefing on this aspect of the implementation effort at its next meeting. Hopefully this is something that Thomas, as the Council Liaison, could help facilitate? I will add this to the agenda working document. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 Follow us on Linkedin<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 1:20 PM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG>; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>>; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [council] Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team Dear GNSO Council, The Registration Data Policy IRT has met today to review its position following the GAC letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf> of 23 August 2023 and the RrSG letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf> of 8 September 2023 offering to remove the contentious Urgent Request wording to allow for a speeding publication of the Policy. The IRT going back to the original Recommendation 18 requesting the IRT to “consider” Urgent Requests believes that in essence it has considered the topic and therefore is able to remove the wording from the final policy without requiring further input from either the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board. The IRT also notes that in the spirit of the above mentioned letters, the issue of Urgent Requests is a topic that must be resolved and asks the GNSO Council to consider it and relevantly prioritize it in its work. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_905115032] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Thanks Greg, sounds good. Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 5:37:05 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.law>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team Hi Susan, Thank you for this. I have also noted some confusion around the status of Urgent Requests. The Board was also considering this issue along with ICANN staff. Yesterday I also requested an update from the Board and/or ICANN on their understanding of where this work stands and what next steps might be. I do not think the Council has been formally asked for their feedback at this stage, but we will seek to clarify (or find those empowered to clarify) by next council meeting. Thanks, Greg From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Susan Payne via council Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 6:50 AM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.law> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi All, Thomas In working on the draft response to the GAC Communique language on the issue of the timing of urgent requests for registration data, I note the update below that Sebastien Ducos sent to the Council mailing list on 26 October. I have not seen any reaction to this – I suspect that the timing of this, right at the end of the Hamburg meeting, may have something to do with that. It appears from Sebastien’s update that the IRT would like Council’s input on this issue of urgent requests. I therefore sought feedback from my IPC colleagues, which is as follows: · EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 states as follows: o “The EPDP Team recommends that criteria for a Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure and the requirements for acknowledging receipt of a request and response to such request will be defined as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations but will include at a minimum [emphasis added]: … ● Timeline & Criteria for Registrar and Registry Operator Responses - Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure: … ● A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation]. The EPDP Team recommends that the above be implemented and further work on defining these criteria commences as needed and as soon as possible.” · For convenience, the EPDP P1 Final Report is here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GRYZqjLsQut5Q1WVmcCpkx6pybhYqdyEVKyh74sevYcdo2FlklnsDOLF13e3GDNgwzLZBKixyn37WaLYk6HE$>, and Rec#18 starts p59. · It appears, if the IPC understands Sebastien correctly, that the IRT has taken the view that EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 only requires the IRT to “consider” urgent requests and that, as such, the policy recommendation does not require a process and timing for the handling of urgent requests actually to be implemented, provided that the IRT has considered this issue (which it believes that it has). · That interpretation does not align with the working group’s intent on Rec#18, and nor is it a reasonable interpretation of the words as written in that recommendation. The intent of Rec#18 is that the IRT should determine a time limit within which Registries and Registrars must consider and accommodate urgent requests, not that it should discuss the matter and decide not to do anything, presumably because it falls into the “too hard” category. Perhaps there is some nuance or additional information that we are not presently seeing. I have been instructed therefore to request that Council receive a briefing on this aspect of the implementation effort at its next meeting. Hopefully this is something that Thomas, as the Council Liaison, could help facilitate? I will add this to the agenda working document. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 Follow us on Linkedin<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 1:20 PM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG>; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>>; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [council] Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team Dear GNSO Council, The Registration Data Policy IRT has met today to review its position following the GAC letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf> of 23 August 2023 and the RrSG letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf> of 8 September 2023 offering to remove the contentious Urgent Request wording to allow for a speeding publication of the Policy. The IRT going back to the original Recommendation 18 requesting the IRT to “consider” Urgent Requests believes that in essence it has considered the topic and therefore is able to remove the wording from the final policy without requiring further input from either the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board. The IRT also notes that in the spirit of the above mentioned letters, the issue of Urgent Requests is a topic that must be resolved and asks the GNSO Council to consider it and relevantly prioritize it in its work. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_905115032] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
participants (3)
-
DiBiase, Gregory -
Sebastien＠registry.godaddy -
Susan Payne