Hi,

I don’t understand how we ended up with this document. The NCSG already provided comments/rationale on why we don’t support not redacting the Organization field on 10 November via email, which I understand is supported by the ISPCP, the RySG and the RrSG. This same rationale was discussed during the last F2F meeting in Barcelona. I don’t, however, see any of it included in the 14 November document.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:10 PM, Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> wrote:

Hi Marika,
 
Thanks for sending the updated language…it will be added to the pile ☺
 
One note though I immediately saw, can you please add the RrSG to the following text:
 
“As such, the NCSG, ISPCP and RySG do not support not redacting this information.”
 
Regards,
Matt 
 
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM
To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Updated data redaction language
 
Dear All,
 
Following yesterday’s discussion, please find attached the updated proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report in relation to data redaction. Note that this version includes input from Margie and Benedict in relation to the action item from yesterday’s EPDP Team meeting (“Margie to provide language that describes the organizations supporting not redacting the “organization” field. Benedict to provide language to explain systemic risk of not publishing organization field.”). If you have any further comments and/or proposed edits, please share these with the list as soon as possible.
 
Best regards,
 
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
 
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
 
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.