Thanks, Melina. For all remaining comments in the document, the staff support team put forward a proposed approach for how to address these remaining items (highlighted in yellow). These proposed approaches have not been applied to the document yet to allow everyone an opportunity to review the proposed approaches before making the changes. As no concerns had been raised on this particular comment, the staff support team had suggested to apply the changes as proposed by the GAC. However, the proposed approach has been flagged by the CPH as an item for further discussion (see email from Beth below and comment from CPH “CPH: As this already appears, as agreed when the team drafted this, we don’t believe it needs to be restated in the body of the document.”) Maybe the GAC and CPH reps can connect prior to the meeting to see if there is a way to come to a compromise on this issue? It seems that it is only a matter of placement of the text, whether it is in a footnote or the main text, so hopefully that is something that can be worked out prior to the meeting? Best regards, Marika From: STROUNGI Melina <Melina.STROUNGI@ec.europa.eu> Date: Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:33 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> Cc: "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [EXTERNAL] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items Dear Marika, Many thanks to you and all staff members for your work on this. The GAC has made a long standing comment in assignment 1 (weeks ago) which, to my knowledge, has not been contested by anyone in the group and actually has been explicitly accepted by some members. However we do not see it been embedded in the text. Please add the following sentence (basically bringing part of the footnote up to a more prominent place in the text): "In terms of enforcement, according to ICANN Compliance, this includes cases where the name or contact information of the Registered Name Holder pass the format validation but are patently inaccurate [*add the footnote here]." Then for the footnote we make the following comment also agreed by members: Please add ' as cited by ICANN Compliance' or a similar reference to demonstrate that this example came from ICANN Compliance. Since we propose to move the part "if the registered name holder...inaccurate" in the main text, it can also be deleted from the footnote. Since this is a last chance to comment we would hope you can implement these changes also in highlight. thanks, Melina From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Elizabeth Bacon Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 10:19 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [EXTERNAL] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items Hello All, Thank you Marika and staff for pulling this together. The CPH has provided further feedback on items #3 and #12. Regarding item #3, we also wanted to provide some input on the status of this work. AFAV was paused in light of the EPDP on Registration Data. There were two RFIs (2014 and 2017), however the solutions were not practical or applicable globally. Pending the implementation of all phases of the EPDP, the RrSG and ICANN agree to review whether a new RFI is needed in light of the changes since 2014/2017. Further implementation is paused. Many thanks, Beth on behalf of the CPH From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 12:01 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org<mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org<mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are not expecting. ________________________________ Dear All, As discussed during today’s call, the staff support team has gone through the remaining comments in the write up for assignment #1 and #2 and put forward a proposed approach for resolving these remaining comments. You can find these proposed approaches in the attached document highlighted in yellow and numbered. If your group cannot live with the proposed approach, or has an alternative approach that the scoping team should consider, please share these on the mailing list by indicating the number of the staff support team proposed approach item as well as your rationale and/or alternative proposal. The group can then discuss during next week’s meeting how to address any items that have been flagged. Please flag any items at the latest by Wednesday 8 June. Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika