Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response
SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Happy 2021 to all! As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-1...>. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist. Background On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201912>, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-to-botterman-23d...> the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-drazek-03f...> on 3 February 2020. Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern. Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information: Domain name: icann.org Registrant: Domain Administrator Organization: ICANN Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?” The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation. Call for Volunteers In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom. If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Director ICANN
Dear Caitlin, I am happy to volunteer for this effort. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Sent At:2021 Jan. 5 (Tue.) 03:27 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:[council] Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Happy 2021 to all! As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist. Background On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation on 3 February 2020. Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern. Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information: Domain name: icann.org Registrant: Domain Administrator Organization: ICANN Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?” The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation. Call for Volunteers In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom. If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Director ICANN
Hi All, and Happy New Year everyone, Thanks Pam, I’ll lend a hand. Regards, Philippe De : council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Pam Little Envoyé : jeudi 7 janvier 2021 23:17 À : council@gnso.icann.org; council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> Objet : Re: [council] Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response Dear Caitlin, I am happy to volunteer for this effort. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Sent At:2021 Jan. 5 (Tue.) 03:27 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject:[council] Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Happy 2021 to all! As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-1...>. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist. Background On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201912>, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-to-botterman-23d...> the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-drazek-03f...> on 3 February 2020. Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern. Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information: Domain name: icann.org Registrant: Domain Administrator Organization: ICANN Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?” The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation. Call for Volunteers In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom. If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Director ICANN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Hi Caitlin: I will volunteer for this. I am sorry this is tardy - I sent my acceptance earlier but it must have gone to the wrong distribution. So if I can still be accommodated, I would like to join. Kurt
On Jan 4, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP
Dear Councilors:
Happy 2021 to all!
As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-1...>. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist.
Background
On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201912>, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-to-botterman-23d...> the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-drazek-03f...> on 3 February 2020.
Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern.
Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information:
Domain name: icann.org <http://icann.org/> Registrant: Domain Administrator Organization: ICANN
Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?”
The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation.
Call for Volunteers
In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom.
If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Caitlin Tubergen Policy Director ICANN
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I don’t think it’s appropriate that I volunteer for this - strikes me that it’s for the registrars to confirm what they’ll do to retain that data somewhere in-house – but one quick comment: whenever a registrar fails to confirm the accuracy of an existing Org field, and decides not to publish that field on that basis, they must still maintain it somewhere and it must still be escrowed. Hope that helps! Best Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 12:56 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response Hi Caitlin: I will volunteer for this. I am sorry this is tardy - I sent my acceptance earlier but it must have gone to the wrong distribution. So if I can still be accommodated, I would like to join. Kurt On Jan 4, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Happy 2021 to all! As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-1...>. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist. Background On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201912>, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-to-botterman-23d...> the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-drazek-03f...> on 3 February 2020. Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern. Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information: Domain name: icann.org<http://icann.org/> Registrant: Domain Administrator Organization: ICANN Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?” The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation. Call for Volunteers In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom. If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Director ICANN _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Councilors: Please find attached the small team’s draft response to the Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-1...> regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-...>. If you have any comments on the draft, please provide them to the list by Thursday, 18 February. We plan to add this item as an AOB item during the upcoming Council meeting and hope to send the draft to the Board following the Council meeting. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:27 AM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Happy 2021 to all! As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-1...>. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist. Background On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201912>, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-to-botterman-23d...> the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-drazek-03f...> on 3 February 2020. Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern. Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information: Domain name: icann.org Registrant: Domain Administrator Organization: ICANN Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?” The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation. Call for Volunteers In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom. If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Director ICANN
participants (5)
-
Caitlin Tubergen -
Kurt Pritz -
Marie Pattullo -
Pam Little -
philippe.fouquart＠orange.com