Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 5 November at 14.00 UTC. In relation to agenda item 4, please review the following and provide your feedback on the mailing list to help inform the discussion.
- Technical contact consent
In relation to the data elements that are optional to provide for the Registered Name Holder (RNH), the following language was added to the preliminary recommendation to reflect that the registrar may not have a direct contractual relationship with the data subject whose information is provided by the RNH:
If the Registered Name Holder elects to provide contact information for a technical contact who does not have a direct contractual relationship with the registrar, the registrar is required to redact or obtain all necessary consent from the technical contact prior to publication.
However, noting that it is currently not proposed that technical contact information would be published, we would suggest making the following update:
If the Registered Name Holder elects to provide contact information for a technical contact who does not have a direct contractual relationship with the registrar, the registrar is required to redact or obtain all necessary consent from the technical contact prior to publication any disclosure.
Question for the EPDP Team: are you comfortable with the inclusion of this revised language as part of preliminary recommendation #10? If not, please provide your rationale and proposed changes / edits prior to the meeting.
This recommendation is derived from Data Elements Workbook A. Are there any concerns about this recommendation?
The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars are required to retain the herein-specified data elements for a period of one year following the life of the registration. This retention period conforms to the specific statute of limitations within the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (“TDRP”). Other relevant parties, including Registries, escrow providers and ICANN Compliance, have separate retention periods less than or equal to one year accordingly and in line with the GDPR requirements.
Question for the EPDP Team: are you comfortable with the inclusion of this preliminary recommendation? If not, please provide your rationale and proposed changes / edits prior to the meeting.
Note that in relation to small team #1 and #2 discussions, the leadership team will be putting forward a proposed path forward shortly.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
Tuesday, 5 November 2018
- Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
- Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes)
- Proposed approach for reviewing and finalizing the Initial Report
- Update on F2F planning
- Proposed next steps in relation to small team #1 and #2 language for inclusion in the Initial Report
- Review of outstanding action items
- Other updates, if applicable
- Review of outstanding items for Initial Report and proposed approach
Objective of discussion:
- Confirm list of outstanding items to be considered in relation to Initial Report and approach for addressing these
- Review outstanding issues punch list (to be circulated)
- Confirm approach for addressing these
- Confirm next steps, if any
- Commence addressing outstanding items
- Technical contact redaction – any concerns in relation to proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report?
- Data retention – any concerns in relation to proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report?
- Confirm next steps, if any
- Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday 8 November at 14.00 UTC.
- Confirm action items
- Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
