November 2018 - Gnso-epdp-team

Requested Edits to Recommendation 8
by Ayden Férdeline 04 Nov '18

04 Nov '18

Dear all, I wish to propose a small modification to the language in Recommendation 8 for clarity. The current text reads as follows: The EPDP Team recommends that redaction must be applied as follows to the data elements that are collected. Data elements not redacted must appear in a freely accessible directory: I request it be modified to read: The EPDP Team recommends that redaction must be applied as follows to the data elements that are collected. Data elements neither redacted nor anonymized must appear in a freely accessible directory: In the table itself, for the field of email, "No" should be revised to "Yes. Anonymized Email Address OR Web Form to be provided." In addition, I request that footnote 7 be revised from: Per the current temp spec requirement: 2.5.1. Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself So to read: The EPDP Team recommends that the 17 May 2018 temp spec requirement that a Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact, but MUST NOT identify the contact email address or the contact itself, continue to be in effect. Thank you. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)

1 0

Location of the next f2f meeting
by Arasteh 03 Nov '18

03 Nov '18

Dear Kurt I understands from the results of Doodle that meeting time after 15 Jan. Received mire vote Pls kindly take into account my obstacle to enter in USA based on inappropriate and unilateral imposition of general ban on the nationals from my country I would have no problem to travel to any other country As you know I will be in ITU PP-18 till 16 November and will be back to Geneva on 17 .11 Pls kindly preserve , respect , defend my legitimate rights Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Small Team #1
by Alan Greenberg 03 Nov '18

03 Nov '18

There are sufficient competing redline versions that I will not contribute another. We support the edits recently proposed by the GAC. However, I wish to make it clear that in the view of the ALAC, the end-point must be that the WHOIS/RDS record distinguish between natural and legal persons. It is fine to defer the implementation plan, but that plan must end with all every gTLD record be flagged as to whether the registrant is a legal or natural person. It is appreciated that this cannot happen overnight, but at worst, the implementation must set a hard deadline, preferably no later than the next registration renewal. Alan

3 2

Purpose M - UDRP Information
by Margie Milam 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Hi- Following up on the action items for this item, please find attached our suggested changes to Purpose M, which include input from the IPC and the BC. We have asked for these additions because it is important to ensure that the complainant is able to fully assess the strength of the claim and the nature of the bad faith of the registrant in order to prove the elements of the dispute resolution process (URS/UDRP). To avoid the filing of ungrounded UDRP complaints, this purpose is fulfilled by making the disclosure before the complaint is filed. Also with regard to the other dispute resolution processes, we note that PDDRPs can be brought based on systemic registrant behavior, and thus there may be instances where this purpose would be relied on to access registrant contact data. Under the PDDRP, the subject matter of the dispute is the gTLD and its use by the operator - including any second-level domain names registered to the registry operator or a related third-party, to the extent the registry operator is complicit in trademark infringement. Similarly RRDRPs are available to complainants to prove a registry is not complying with its registration restrictions, which may require access to registration data, as it relates to the registration restriction. For example, if there is a TLD that is limited to registrants located in a particular geographic region, those elements would need to be accessed for this purpose. There are also registries that have specific RPMs that would fall under this purpose. For example some registries have voluntarily adopted RPMs in their contracts, which would also appear to fall in this Purpose M category (for example, .XXX added a “Rapid Evaluation Service Policy” procedure in their registry agreement to address abusive registrations). Finally, to address Kristina’s concern about potential abuse, there are ways to address this so that it is not grounds for a phishing expedition, such as: * Requiring the trademark holder to represent that they have a good faith intent to file a UDRP or other dispute resolution mechanism or cybersquatting action * Dispute resolution providers should be able to audit requests to ensure that the requester filed a UDRP/URS or legal complaint, or in good faith determined that no grounds existed. Have a great weekend everybody! Margie

1 0

Further IPC Input to Purpose M
by Plaut, Diane 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Dear EPDP Team- Attached please find further comments from the IPC on Purpose M. In sum, the proposed change (1), and supporting comments are meant to preserve on the one hand, due process for registrants, and on the other -- related–hand, to permit third party dispute resolution providers to administer claims of abusive registration (see in this respect the comment with references to the UDRP Rules para 4 on “notice”). It is, moreover, worth noting that the ability of providers to undertake their roles keeps contracted parties out of such disputes and flows by contract (RRA and RAA) to registrants in the case of the UDRP. The textual change under MPA-4 from “implement” to “administer” merely reflects more accurately the nature of what dispute resolution providers do (it being for the registrar e.g., to actually “implement” a UDRP transfer decision). Sincerely, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806  diane.plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.

1 0

BC Comments to Small Team #2
by Margie Milam 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Hi Please find attached BC comments to Small Team #2. All the best, Margie

1 0

BC Comments -Small Team #1
by Margie Milam 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Hi- As promised, here are the changes requested by the BC on the small team #1. All the best, Margie

1 0

Further Input on Purpose E from IPC
by Plaut, Diane 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Dear Kurt, Marika and EPDP Team- Further to yesterday’s call, I wanted to add IPC input and legal opinion in relation to Purpose E. We all very much appreciate the incredible job that Marc A. did and his output is spot on. The language used, clarity of intent and structure of the Purpose is sound. The IPC herein supports the present draft but further wishes to clarify and confirm its Triage support for the BC in addition of 6(1)(b) as a legal basis for Purpose E, particularly in light of Marc and Berry Cobb’s work. Here is the basis for our position: First, in stating the legal analysis it is understood that: In order to rely on Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR (contractual necessity), the processing must be necessary for the performance of A CONTRACT (or to take steps at the request of the data subject before entering into a contract) TO WHICH THE DATA SUBJECT IS PARTY. The GDPR does not therefore specify that the controller must be a party to the contract with the data subject, only that the data subject must be party to a contract which necessitates the processing in question by the controller. As result, there is an argument that ICANN's processing of registrants' personal data is necessary for the performance of the contract between registrants and registrars/registries, notwithstanding that ICANN is not a party to that contract in this context. We believe that there is a basis to show privity of contract here because there are the following contractual obligations flowing from the registrant through the registrars/registries and ICANN in order to provide escrow as per the RAA: 3.6 Data Escrow. During the Term of this Agreement, on a schedule, under the terms, and in the format specified by ICANN, Registrar shall submit an electronic copy of the data described in Subsections 3.4.1.2<http://3.4.1.2> through 3.4.1.5<http://3.4.1.5> to ICANN or, at Registrar's election and at its expense, to a reputable escrow agent mutually approved by Registrar and ICANN, such approval also not to be unreasonably withheld by either party. The data shall be held under an agreement among Registrar, ICANN, and the escrow agent (if any) providing that (1) the data shall be received and held in escrow, with no use other than verification that the deposited data is complete, consistent, and in proper format, until released to ICANN; (2) the data shall be released from escrow upon expiration without renewal or termination of this Agreement; and (3) ICANN's rights under the escrow agreement shall be assigned with any assignment of this Agreement. The escrow shall provide that in the event the escrow is released under this Subsection, ICANN (or its assignee) shall have a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise (only for transitional purposes) or have exercised all rights necessary to provide Registrar Services. Based on the above, together with the recommendations that are proposed in Purpose E to update the escrow agreements to provide for the “appropriate contractual provisions” to make clear the contractual obligations and relationships of the parties and bring the agreements into line with current data protection laws, as well as the need for Data Processing Agreements (which require that each party’s data processing activities and responsibilities are set forth), the contractual nexus between ICANN and the data subject will be made clearer and the support for the [additional] legal basis of 6(1)(b) clarified. As a result, BC/IPC ask that the Initial Report include 6(1)(b) as a basis, simply to provide for the clear obligation of the escrow data to be provided without concern of inconsistent application under 6(1)(f) by individual registrars and registries. It is clear from the great work of Marc and Berry that this is a clear goal of Purpose E, to provide clarity and uniform practice around the obligations in relation to escrow. Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806  diane.plaut(a)corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService(a)corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - Action items due today, Friday 2 November - RySG - Small Team #1
by Alan Woods 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Dear all, Please find attached the responses and edits of the Joint Contracted Parties to Small Team #1 document. Please note that I have attached a red-line and a clean version for ease of review. Kind regards, Alan Woods [image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ The Victorians, 15-18 Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - Action items due today, Friday 2 November - RySG - Small Team #2
by Rosette, Kristina 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

* Each group (SG/C/AC) to express the group's views and/or proposed edits on the revised responses of the small team #2 charter question responses with the mailing list (see original version and input received to date attached). Hi, The RySG supports the proposed changes put forth by NCSG and opposes the proposed changes put forth by IPC. Kristina From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 9:55 AM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - Action items due today, Friday 2 November Dear All, As a reminder, the following action items are due today, Friday 2 November COB, in order to allow the leadership team and staff to plan the meetings and agenda’s going forward: * Each group (SG/C/AC) to review the responsible parties overview for all purposes and identify which designations need to be further considered. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-rdfchOwpANFVKOtnM_9bPp-zT4JAvTN8dJqebd…. * Each group (SG/C/AC) to review latest versions of data elements workbooks and flag any issues that need to be reviewed prior to publication of Initial Report. See https://community.icann.org/x/5AC8BQ. * Each group (SG/C/AC) to express the group's views and/or proposed edits on small team #1 responses to charter questions and preliminary recommendations with the mailing list (see original version and input received to date attached). * Each group (SG/C/AC) to express the group's views and/or proposed edits on the revised responses of the small team #2 charter question responses with the mailing list (see original version and input received to date attached). Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0