Hi Margie, This is not a can’t live with item and was intended to provide more context to the reader. If the BC isn’t comfortable with this proposed minor edit, then in the interests of time, and finalizing the initial report addendum, I suggest we skip this edit. I noted the same in the Google document. Best, Marc From: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 6:04 PM To: Anderson, Marc <mcanderson@verisign.com>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Minor edits -Ry-SG pages 17-18 Hi Marc – I wanted to give you a heads-up that the BC doesn’t view the RY-SG recommended edit as minor. In particular, we don’t agree that the schedule constraints should stop further policy work on accuracy at the EPDDP in Phase 2. Margie Margie Milam IP Enforcement & DNS Policy Lead | Facebook Legal NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Reply-To: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:00 PM To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Minor edits - Rec #20 - email discussion All, As time is short, I want to try and cover this via email. The first minor edit proposed by the BC is this: Page 9 (223-224) IPC As a friendly amendment, the final sentence doesn’t seem to add anything but confusion. P/P providers do not need the EPDP’s permission to use a pseudonumized email address. The word “also” is particularly problematic as it could be interpreted as “in addition to the RDDS data” (mentioned in the preceding sentence). We think this recommendation is clearer with this sentence removed. Friendly amendment: for clarity, strike final sentence in this recommendation. I think the last sentence is important to have, clarifying that a pseudonymized email may be provided in the response. I understand this is a practice among some P/P providers. Similar language was used in the original phase 1 recommendation# 14 that this is intended to replace. Is the word “also” the main problem… could concerns be addressed by just removing that word? Thanks, Marc