Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15
Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Per our Team discussion, leadership/staff would like to share the proposed language for Outputs 14-15 with the respective rationales again for your review and feedback. Kindly review the proposal together with your respective groups and provide feedback either through the mailing list or during the next Team meeting (5 September), if possible. Leadership/staff envisions the finalization of these Outputs by Thursday, 12 September, at 12:00 UTC. * Output 14 Recommendation 14: Rationale for change After EPDP Team deliberations, it became apparent that two concepts were being combined in PR 14 and IG 15. Firstly, registries and registrars need a mechanism to communicate between themselves, to determine what the allocated and allocatable variant domain names are for a given domain name, for a variety of reasons, but principally, to ensure that the same entity requirement is adhered to. Secondarily, an end user needs to be able to determine what the allocated variant domain names are (e.g., interest in registering a domain name or filing a URS complaint). Because of these two distinct purposes, it likely makes sense to delineate them into a separate recommendation and implementation guidance. (New Draft) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the “same entity” principle and its implications for variant domain names, ICANN org should work with relevant stakeholders to develop and enable a service to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Preliminary Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” * Output 15 Implementation Guidance 15: Rationale for change Support staff reached out to ICANN Legal, to determine whether there may be data privacy concerns from disclosing the allocated variant domain names of a given domain name. Though the disclosure of allocated variant domain names may not directly expose personal data, it could reveal details about the registrant that may unintentionally compromise their privacy. As such, the recommendation from legal is to restrict public access to this information or avoid disclosure altogether. However, there are reasons that an end user may need this information. (New Draft) Final Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end user to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, registrars should accept and consider whether disclosure of this information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrar should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Implementation Guidance 15 “Final Recommendation 14 is intended as a minimum requirement. A registry or a registrar may choose to enhance the behavior of the service to provide additional information or enable other methods to provide the following information (e.g., bulk services): 15.1 the required data elements for the given domain name in accordance with the Registration Data Policy; 15.2 all the other allocated variant domain name(s) under a given gTLD and its delegated gTLD variant label(s), if any; and 15.3 the source domain name used to calculate the variant domain set.” Thank you for your kind cooperation. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 8:00 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Review Request and New Language for Outputs 14-15 Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Adding on to the long list of homework, kindly find the updates to pp.39-47 in Section 4 for “Charter Questions with No Outputs”: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmu...> We look forward to your kind review and feedback by Wednesday, 4 September, 2024, at 21:00 UTC. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 11:01 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Review Request and New Language for Outputs 14-15 Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, As we prepare for our next meeting on Thursday, 29 August at 12:00 UTC, this is a friendly reminder for the Team to review and provide feedback for “grandfathered” suggestions, Section 3 (Glossary), and Section 4 (Outputs 1-20, excluding 14-15, 17). The links to these documents are shared for your convenience again below: * Grandfathered suggestions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EJdmbLg-mAst_ajV-P3DFRhzyE8O4vDKWdZR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EJdmbLg-m...> * Section 3 (Glossary): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3iHkh3UZyEKFhVi-oGFdcG-7dfgc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3...> * Section 4 (Outputs 1-20): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmu...> As for the Outputs 14-15, please see below the suggested new language and the reason behind each one, based on the Public Comment and Team’s discussions, for your review. The current language within the working document is also presented for you below. This item will be discussed during our meeting this Thursday and the new language will only be incorporated into the working document once the Team reaches an agreement: * Output 14 Recommendation 14: Rationale for change After EPDP Team deliberations, it became apparent that two concepts were being combined in PR 14 and IG 15. Firstly, registries and registrars need a mechanism to communicate between themselves, to determine what the allocated and allocatable variant domain names are for a given domain name, for a variety of reasons, but principally, to ensure that the same entity requirement is adhered to. Secondarily, an end user needs to be able to determine what the allocated variant domain names are (e.g., interest in registering a domain name or filing a URS complaint). Because of these two distinct purposes, it likely makes sense to delineate them into a separate recommendation and implementation guidance. (New Draft) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the “same entity” principle and its implications for variant domain names, ICANN org should work with relevant stakeholders to develop and enable a service to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Preliminary Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” * Output 15 Implementation Guidance 15: Rationale for change Support staff reached out to ICANN Legal, to determine whether there may be data privacy concerns from disclosing the allocated variant domain names of a given domain name. Though the disclosure of allocated variant domain names may not directly expose personal data, it could reveal details about the registrant that may unintentionally compromise their privacy. As such, the recommendation from legal is to restrict public access to this information or avoid disclosure altogether. However, there are reasons that an end user may need this information. (New Draft) Final Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end user to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, registrars should accept and consider whether disclosure of this information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrar should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Implementation Guidance 15 “Final Recommendation 14 is intended as a minimum requirement. A registry or a registrar may choose to enhance the behavior of the service to provide additional information or enable other methods to provide the following information (e.g., bulk services): 15.1 the required data elements for the given domain name in accordance with the Registration Data Policy; 15.2 all the other allocated variant domain name(s) under a given gTLD and its delegated gTLD variant label(s), if any; and 15.3 the source domain name used to calculate the variant domain set.” Thank you for your kind consideration and we look forward to the discussions soon. Warm regards, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 6:58 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Meeting to Resume 29 August (Usual Meeting Time) Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, We hope you are having a great 2-week break from the EPDP-IDNs! Based on the result of the doodle poll as well as re-evaluating the progress of the remaining work, the Team Meeting will resume on Thursday, 29 August, at 12:00 UTC on the usual meeting time. As previously announced, if the Team needs extra time for further discussions, this will be scheduled for another week in September. In addition, please review the updated language within Outputs 10-13, 16, 18-20 (pp.20-27, 29, 31-37). Kindly note that Outputs 14-15, and 17 are still a work in progress and will be flagged for review at a later date. Also, the Leadership will be reviewing the updated language in parallel with the Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmu...> As a reminder, kindly also review and provide feedback to the other requests below, including “grandfathered” suggestions, Section 3 (Glossary), and Section 4 (Outputs 1-9), for a fruitful meeting when we resume. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 7:48 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Meeting to Resume End of August (Week of 26 August) Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Sincere apologies for the abrupt announcement, but due to unforeseen circumstances which involve the absence of Leadership/several Team members, the EPDP-IDNs Team Meeting for this week and next (15 and 22 August) will be canceled, only to resume during the last week of August (Week of 26 August). The Leadership suggests that, if possible, the Team holds 2 meetings during the last week of August (possibly Tuesday, 27 August and the usual Thursday, 29 August), to not only pick up where we left off but to hopefully conclude the review of comments within the working document for all outputs and other public comment inputs. A doodle poll will be sent out for another meeting during the last week, and if not possible to find the extra time, our meeting will still proceed on Thursday, 29 August. Further scheduling for September (if any more to be scheduled beyond 5 September, other than the Final Consensus Call) will be discussed on 29 August. As another reminder, the updates for Recs.10-20 will be shared soon. In the meantime, please review and provide feedback to the requests below (as none have been provided yet), including “grandfathered” suggestions, Section 3 (Glossary), and Section 4 (Outputs 1-9), for a fruitful meeting when we resume. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 10:44 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] "Grandfathering" for Review Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, As briefly mentioned via our last Team Meeting on 8 August, kindly find in the link ICANN org’s suggested updates to the term, “grandfathered” for your review: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EJdmbLg-mAst_ajV-P3DFRhzyE8O4vDKWdZR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EJdmbLg-m...> The columns are arranged as follows: * Column A: Relevant Output/Rationale (name/number) where the term is included * Column B: Particular sentence/paragraph including the term(s) * Column C: Replaced term(s) * Column D: Revised sentence/paragraph * Column E: Full text of the Output/Rationale to understand the context * Column F: Notes Upon Leadership/Staff’s revision of ICANN org’s suggested text(s), the Leadership has drawn the conclusion that ICANN org’s approach is the simplest and least disruptive in addressing org’s concerns about using the term, “grandfathered,” in our report. As you can see within the spreadsheet, the general term that was used to replace “grandfathered” was “exempted” (or in some cases, “excluded,” if duplicated within one sentence), which does seem to adequately convey the meaning or intent of the recommendations as drafted. As a reminder, the terms instead of “grandfathered,” that were suggested from ICANN org and the Team via discussions were: * Pre-existing domains * Exempted domains * Domains created before a certain date * Right of Continuance * Transitional exceptions Also as a reminder, please review Section 3 and Section 4 (Outputs 1-9) within the working docs as requested in the emails below. The links are shared with you again for your convenience: * Section 3 (Glossary) pp.8, 11-15: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3iHkh3UZyEKFhVi-oGFdcG-7dfgc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3...> * Section 4 (Outputs 1-9) pp.3-20: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmu...> The updates for 10-20 and other general comments will be notified soon. We look forward to your kind review and further discussions related to the terms and Outputs during our next Team meeting. Kind regards, Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 3:31 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Working Doc (Section 3) for Review Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Following Section 4, please find the updated language for Section 3 (Glossary) based on the public comments received; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3iHkh3UZyEKFhVi-oGFdcG-7dfgc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3...> The pages to focus on are pp.8, 11-15; Once again, please provide your feedback (sidebar comments only) mainly on the aforementioned parts to review together on Thursday, 15 August, during our Team Meeting. Updates for other parts of the section (or overall) will occur at a later date. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:32 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Working Doc (Section 4) for Review Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, We hope this email finds you well. Please find the updated language for Outputs 1-9 so far in the working doc., based on the discussions from the Public Comment Review; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmu...> The pages to focus on are pp.3-19; please provide your feedback (sidebar comments only) to the aforementioned parts only to review together on Thursday, 15 August, during our Team Meeting. Please also note that more updates will occur post Rys’ feedback (post Tuesday, 6 August) and Section 3 updates will also be shared soon. Updates for other parts of the section will occur at a later date. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon.
Hi Saewon, hi team, thanks to Saewon for compiling all this in a succinct format, that's very helpful. I do have a question regarding the new Rec 14:
*(New Draft) _Final Recommendation 14_:* /“To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information [...]
I'm not sure I understand this recommendation correctly. So I'll ask some clarification questions or write down, what I understand and would like you to confirm or correct me, please. (All following references to TLDs, registries and registrars are of course meant to be gTLD/ICANN accredited.) 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017
Dear Michael, Thank you for your questions. Please refer to the responses below and kindly note that these are Staff's understanding of your questions (sorry that I could not mark the responses in a different color or highlight them as the rich text format is not allowed here): 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. --> 'How' the information would be provided is not prescribed. However, 'who' will be involved in these discussions and providing the information is prescribed, namely, at a minimum, gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars (i.e., the contracted parties). ***Staff is still trying to determine with GTS ICANN org's role in this situation. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. --> Similar to the rationale provided in Final Recommendation 6 and the responses to charter questions C3 and C3a, the solution should be uniform, to the extent possible, where a single mechanism is agreed upon and used to identify the appropriate information to satisfy the "same entity" principle. The method should be of their own choosing, but this single method should be determined together by all registries and registrars that should be applied to all TLDs. However, as the suggested IG 15 states, allowing an end user/registrant to discover the information (allocated variant domain names for a given domain name) is at each registrar's discretion based on the interest of the requestor and the applicable law that does not compromise data privacy. I hope this satisfies your confusion. Warm regards, EPDP-IDNs Team Staff Support. On 9/3/24, 2:44 AM, "Michael Bauland via Gnso-epdp-idn-team" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>> wrote: Hi Saewon, hi team, thanks to Saewon for compiling all this in a succinct format, that's very helpful. I do have a question regarding the new Rec 14:
*(New Draft) _Final Recommendation 14_:* /“To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information [...]
I'm not sure I understand this recommendation correctly. So I'll ask some clarification questions or write down, what I understand and would like you to confirm or correct me, please. (All following references to TLDs, registries and registrars are of course meant to be gTLD/ICANN accredited.) 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
Hi Saewon, thank you very much for your response. Don't worry about the highlighting. I think most questions are answered. One outcome I wanted to prevent is, that each and every TLD starts a process to discuss with all their registrars to decide how and by whom the data is made available. That would be a terrible burden for registrars if they have to have the same discussion with hundreds of registries. But if this is on a higher level, such that just once registries and registrars come together to decide this, then that should be fine. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017
Seawon cc as above Good morning; thanks for Micheal rising and for your reply. Can I confirm, however, my understanding that whatever arrangements the Registries and Registrars make the information HAS to be provided for registrants to see. Best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Sent: 03 September 2024 23:03 To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15 Dear Michael, Thank you for your questions. Please refer to the responses below and kindly note that these are Staff's understanding of your questions (sorry that I could not mark the responses in a different color or highlight them as the rich text format is not allowed here): 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. --> 'How' the information would be provided is not prescribed. However, 'who' will be involved in these discussions and providing the information is prescribed, namely, at a minimum, gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars (i.e., the contracted parties). ***Staff is still trying to determine with GTS ICANN org's role in this situation. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. --> Similar to the rationale provided in Final Recommendation 6 and the responses to charter questions C3 and C3a, the solution should be uniform, to the extent possible, where a single mechanism is agreed upon and used to identify the appropriate information to satisfy the "same entity" principle. The method should be of their own choosing, but this single method should be determined together by all registries and registrars that should be applied to all TLDs. However, as the suggested IG 15 states, allowing an end user/registrant to discover the information (allocated variant domain names for a given domain name) is at each registrar's discretion based on the interest of the requestor and the applicable law that does not compromise data privacy. I hope this satisfies your confusion. Warm regards, EPDP-IDNs Team Staff Support. On 9/3/24, 2:44 AM, "Michael Bauland via Gnso-epdp-idn-team" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>> wrote: Hi Saewon, hi team, thanks to Saewon for compiling all this in a succinct format, that's very helpful. I do have a question regarding the new Rec 14:
*(New Draft) _Final Recommendation 14_:* /“To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information [...]
I'm not sure I understand this recommendation correctly. So I'll ask some clarification questions or write down, what I understand and would like you to confirm or correct me, please. (All following references to TLDs, registries and registrars are of course meant to be gTLD/ICANN accredited.) 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
Thanks Nigel, Saewon and all. We also would also like to have the answer to Nigel's question, as ALAC's response to the public comment had proposed a mechanism by which any one--including registrants, security researchers or end users--could have access to non-private information regarding the variant set. With kind regards satish On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 2:04 PM Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> wrote:
Seawon cc as above
Good morning; thanks for Micheal rising and for your reply.
Can I confirm, however, my understanding that whatever arrangements the Registries and Registrars make the information HAS to be provided for registrants to see.
Best
Nigel
-----Original Message----- From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Sent: 03 September 2024 23:03 To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your questions. Please refer to the responses below and kindly note that these are Staff's understanding of your questions (sorry that I could not mark the responses in a different color or highlight them as the rich text format is not allowed here):
1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. --> 'How' the information would be provided is not prescribed. However, 'who' will be involved in these discussions and providing the information is prescribed, namely, at a minimum, gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars (i.e., the contracted parties). ***Staff is still trying to determine with GTS ICANN org's role in this situation.
2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. --> Similar to the rationale provided in Final Recommendation 6 and the responses to charter questions C3 and C3a, the solution should be uniform, to the extent possible, where a single mechanism is agreed upon and used to identify the appropriate information to satisfy the "same entity" principle. The method should be of their own choosing, but this single method should be determined together by all registries and registrars that should be applied to all TLDs. However, as the suggested IG 15 states, allowing an end user/registrant to discover the information (allocated variant domain names for a given domain name) is at each registrar's discretion based on the interest of the requestor and the applicable law that does not compromise data privacy.
I hope this satisfies your confusion.
Warm regards, EPDP-IDNs Team Staff Support.
On 9/3/24, 2:44 AM, "Michael Bauland via Gnso-epdp-idn-team" < gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>> wrote:
Hi Saewon, hi team,
thanks to Saewon for compiling all this in a succinct format, that's very helpful.
I do have a question regarding the new Rec 14:
*(New Draft) _Final Recommendation 14_:* /“To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information [...]
I'm not sure I understand this recommendation correctly. So I'll ask some clarification questions or write down, what I understand and would like you to confirm or correct me, please. (All following references to TLDs, registries and registrars are of course meant to be gTLD/ICANN accredited.)
1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions.
2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs.
Cheers,
Michael
-- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany
Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de <mailto: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>>
Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org <mailto: gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
Satish Thank you for putting question in a much clearer form; Best Nigel From: Satish Babu <sbabu@ieee.org> Sent: 04 September 2024 09:50 To: Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> Cc: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org>; Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15 Thanks Nigel, Saewon and all. We also would also like to have the answer to Nigel's question, as ALAC's response to the public comment had proposed a mechanism by which any one--including registrants, security researchers or end users--could have access to non-private information regarding the variant set. With kind regards satish On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 2:04 PM Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> wrote: Seawon cc as above Good morning; thanks for Micheal rising and for your reply. Can I confirm, however, my understanding that whatever arrangements the Registries and Registrars make the information HAS to be provided for registrants to see. Best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> Sent: 03 September 2024 23:03 To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>; gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15 Dear Michael, Thank you for your questions. Please refer to the responses below and kindly note that these are Staff's understanding of your questions (sorry that I could not mark the responses in a different color or highlight them as the rich text format is not allowed here): 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. --> 'How' the information would be provided is not prescribed. However, 'who' will be involved in these discussions and providing the information is prescribed, namely, at a minimum, gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars (i.e., the contracted parties). ***Staff is still trying to determine with GTS ICANN org's role in this situation. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. --> Similar to the rationale provided in Final Recommendation 6 and the responses to charter questions C3 and C3a, the solution should be uniform, to the extent possible, where a single mechanism is agreed upon and used to identify the appropriate information to satisfy the "same entity" principle. The method should be of their own choosing, but this single method should be determined together by all registries and registrars that should be applied to all TLDs. However, as the suggested IG 15 states, allowing an end user/registrant to discover the information (allocated variant domain names for a given domain name) is at each registrar's discretion based on the interest of the requestor and the applicable law that does not compromise data privacy. I hope this satisfies your confusion. Warm regards, EPDP-IDNs Team Staff Support. On 9/3/24, 2:44 AM, "Michael Bauland via Gnso-epdp-idn-team" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>>> wrote: Hi Saewon, hi team, thanks to Saewon for compiling all this in a succinct format, that's very helpful. I do have a question regarding the new Rec 14:
*(New Draft) _Final Recommendation 14_:* /“To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information [...]
I'm not sure I understand this recommendation correctly. So I'll ask some clarification questions or write down, what I understand and would like you to confirm or correct me, please. (All following references to TLDs, registries and registrars are of course meant to be gTLD/ICANN accredited.) 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>>> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>>> Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>>> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
Thank you for the questions, Satish and Nigel. Again, please refer to the response below based on Staff’s understanding: Implementation Guidance 15 was suggested to resolve the end-users’ needs to be able to determine what the allocated variant domain names are (e.g., interest in registering a domain name or filing a URS complaint). However, in order to mitigate any data privacy risks, per ICANN Legal Function’s advice, the proposed language was left at registrars’ discretion to accept and consider whether the disclosure of such information should be granted, balancing the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject. In contrast, Recommendation 14 is about the contracted parties having a technically feasible solution to be able to communicate with each other regarding variant domain names. The solution developed through Rec. 14 would likely be the manner in which a registrar would retrieve the requested information (e.g., one of the questions that RrSG posed for Rec.1 through the Public Comment review process<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oFX0h_czrJtV0Z_q9haGuVHjnhy4lZyyee-I...> – possibly a technical solution such as an EPP extension?). I hope this readdresses Michael’s concerns and reduces the burden for registrars. Sharing with you all below the drafted language for Outputs 14 and 15 again, for your convenience: Draft Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” Draft Final Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end user to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, registrars should accept and consider whether disclosure of this information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrar should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” Kind regards, EPDP-IDNs Team Support Staff. From: Satish Babu <sbabu@ieee.org> Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 at 4:50 AM To: "Hickson, Nigel (DSIT)" <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> Cc: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15 Thanks Nigel, Saewon and all. We also would also like to have the answer to Nigel's question, as ALAC's response to the public comment had proposed a mechanism by which any one--including registrants, security researchers or end users--could have access to non-private information regarding the variant set. With kind regards satish On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 2:04 PM Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> wrote: Seawon cc as above Good morning; thanks for Micheal rising and for your reply. Can I confirm, however, my understanding that whatever arrangements the Registries and Registrars make the information HAS to be provided for registrants to see. Best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> Sent: 03 September 2024 23:03 To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>; gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15 Dear Michael, Thank you for your questions. Please refer to the responses below and kindly note that these are Staff's understanding of your questions (sorry that I could not mark the responses in a different color or highlight them as the rich text format is not allowed here): 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. --> 'How' the information would be provided is not prescribed. However, 'who' will be involved in these discussions and providing the information is prescribed, namely, at a minimum, gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars (i.e., the contracted parties). ***Staff is still trying to determine with GTS ICANN org's role in this situation. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. --> Similar to the rationale provided in Final Recommendation 6 and the responses to charter questions C3 and C3a, the solution should be uniform, to the extent possible, where a single mechanism is agreed upon and used to identify the appropriate information to satisfy the "same entity" principle. The method should be of their own choosing, but this single method should be determined together by all registries and registrars that should be applied to all TLDs. However, as the suggested IG 15 states, allowing an end user/registrant to discover the information (allocated variant domain names for a given domain name) is at each registrar's discretion based on the interest of the requestor and the applicable law that does not compromise data privacy. I hope this satisfies your confusion. Warm regards, EPDP-IDNs Team Staff Support. On 9/3/24, 2:44 AM, "Michael Bauland via Gnso-epdp-idn-team" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>>> wrote: Hi Saewon, hi team, thanks to Saewon for compiling all this in a succinct format, that's very helpful. I do have a question regarding the new Rec 14:
*(New Draft) _Final Recommendation 14_:* /“To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information [...]
I'm not sure I understand this recommendation correctly. So I'll ask some clarification questions or write down, what I understand and would like you to confirm or correct me, please. (All following references to TLDs, registries and registrars are of course meant to be gTLD/ICANN accredited.) 1. We are not actually prescribing *who* is going to provide that information, nor *how* it is provided. Only that it's up to registries or registrars to sort out these questions. 2. Is this on a per TLD (incl. variants) basis? So should registry X work with all their registrars to find a solution how to provide this information and should registry Y do the same with their registrars? Or should there be some more global working group of all registries and registrars to find a solution that should then be applied to all TLDs. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>>> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>>> Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Certified according DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org>>>> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave@icann.org> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
participants (4)
-
Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) -
Michael Bauland -
Saewon Lee -
Satish Babu