Responding just for Recommendation 10 I am ok with the text in 1 and 2 for recommendation 10, but noting that the operational burden for this falls on Registrars, I’d really like to hear from them before giving my support. I find it a little odd that in the 3rd “note” is a response to one pieces of SSAC feedback. This seems a little out of place in recommendation 10. We don’t respond to other pieces of public comment feedback so why just this one here? I don’t have a problem with the point being made, so if others feel it’s important to note the applicability of recommendation 3 it would be reworded as: Note: Recommendation 3 of the EPDP Team’s Final Report specifically provides that the EPDP Team’s work shall not affect the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies. Accordingly, registrars are still required to reverify a registered name holder’s email address if the registrar receives information suggesting that the contact information is incorrect. This would include a bounced email notification or non-delivery notification message in response to a registrar-initiated communication. This requirement can be found in paragraph 4 of the Whois Accuracy Program Specification in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 3:26 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review: updated recommendations 10, 11, 12 Dear EPDP Team: Attached, please find the updated recommendations. The updates are the result of today’s EPDP Team discussion As always, please feel free to flag any text that you believe does not represent what the Team agreed to. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin