Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Mailbox Transport; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:13:53 -0800 Received: from PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.18) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:13:52 -0800 Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (192.0.46.77) by PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:13:53 -0800 Authentication-Results: ppa1.lax.icann.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org; dmarc=none Received: from pps.reinject (ppa4.dc.icann.org [127.0.0.1]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id x0PJDpiC025454 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:51 GMT Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0PJCHPD024532; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:51 GMT Received: from pechora8.dc.icann.org (pechora8.icann.org [192.0.46.74]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org with ESMTP id x0PJDoUc025448 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:50 +0000 Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora8.dc.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02768C03B1; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (mm.icann.org [192.0.32.100]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C92E02E5; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628F7EE03DA; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: gnso-epdp-team@mm.icann.org Delivered-To: gnso-epdp-team@mm.icann.org Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.icann.org [192.0.33.72]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF47AEE00BE for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from p3plsmtpa11-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa11-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B06561E082F for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([47.154.201.104]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id n6utgd4wBZBM2n6utgaenr; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:13:27 -0700 From: Kurt Pritz Message-ID: <604B6C69-FD29-412A-B717-9874428927FE@kjpritz.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:13:26 -0800 To: EPDP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2) X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (pechora2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.72]); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:13:47 +0000 (UTC) X-CMAE-Envelope: =?utf-8?q?MS4wfEylAXiyoBkZpMLBRePZsde9Vjw8y9QuEKU48qESShlX?= =?utf-8?q?Jhogjl38t6t+BHQJ2ql8DLiW9g3sLwhtFsYYMKcWg3L0fJIIEJDFoC1tor24iEzsl?= =?utf-8?q?mNdzi7N?= xf+QvKv0oVQkzdtDOKZz2YV1+dXlbtZQhTblhcTFOQhXkxWeYFwQlqR8 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Organization Field - Updated - Recommendation #9 X-BeenThere: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org Sender: Gnso-epdp-team X-CLX-Shades: Deliver X-CLX-Response: 1enkXbk9GQ1xPWBEKelkXGxoaGhEKeloXGxoaGhEKTFkXGRodEQpMehcbHxs RCllEF2RJemhOfV1NS1JEEQpZTEMXYX99AUB7ZmcZGVoRCllDF2JPSVobG0QcXmNFEQpZTRdnZn IRCllJFxpxGhAadwYYEh1xHR4eEBp3BhgaBhoRClleF2hjeREKSUYXQ0lLRER1WlhFTl9JXkNFR AdcRxEKQ04XbU1/bxJLchh+QEBkGUFkHUlTQUBncGsZTEhLf2t9EmIRClhcFx8EGgQbHBsHHhpL GE4STx8FGxoEGxsaBB4SBBIcEBseGh8aEQpeWRd+TXt5YREKTVwXGB8cEQpMWhdobU1NUhEKTEY XTWtpEQpDWhccEgQbHRIEGB8YBBsaHxEKQl4XGxEKRFgXGRsRCkJGF2UZQ0dkf34TUEBQEQpCRx doe1tdXExzElscTBEKQlwXGhEKQkUXY0dBZB9pZn1NAVgRCkJOF2cTTk0SE2l8YE9YEQpCTBdnc mEeWAFhX1gYHREKQmwXZ3sZcm5aXH1yQFkRCkJAF2dib39jGnptSRgZEQpNXhcbEQpaWBcfEQpw aBdpWmRdc3lNSXlsbRATHhEKcGgXYl9iWWx9eWMfZEsQEx8RCnBoF2NEGnNseHJmAUFoEBsaGRE KcGgXZxxsAW55bkYSBWkQHRgRCnBoF2R7S316chtNaRJZEB0TEQpwbBdgGUxuHmd4YhpjGBAZGh EKcEMXbUBgR0MTHUJPe0IQGRoRCm1+FxsRClhNF0sRIA== X-Proofpoint-SPF-Result: pass X-Proofpoint-SPF-Record: v=spf1 ip4:192.0.32.0/20 ip4:199.91.192.0/21 ip4:64.78.40.0/27 ip4:162.216.194.0/27 ip6:2620:0:2d0::0/48 ip6:2620:0:2830::0/48 ip6:2620:0:2ed0::0/48 include:salesforce.icann.org -all X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-25_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-DMARC-Result: none X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1000 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1000 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=clx:Deliver adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=2 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901250148 Return-Path: gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Network-Message-Id: ce3ad99b-b125-4ead-670d-08d682f93e8a X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Enterprise: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="B_3631500811_380368774" MIME-Version: 1.0 --B_3631500811_380368774 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3631500811_143444559" --B_3631500811_143444559 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everyone: In the ongoing and seemingly never-ending attempt to close discussion on Re= commendations for the Final Report via email discussion, below please find a= mended wording for Recommendation 9, having to do with the publication / re= daction of the Organization field.=20 After posting of the initial version, I read the email list comment and was= drawn to James=E2=80=99 rather clean outline, as opposed to my less clear earlier= proposal. Therefore, I took the liberty of reorganizing the proposed Recom= mendation somewhat, taking into account not only James structure but also th= e email comments before and after that (as well as the meeting notes). The r= esult is below. I also placed the procedure itself as part of our =E2=80=9Cimpleme= ntation advice=E2=80=9D as there will be operational details to figure out. The i= mplementation effort can ensure that those =E2=80=9Cdetails=E2=80=9D are consonant with = the policy goals. Proposed Recommendation #9 The EPDP Team recommends that: - The Organization field will be published if that publication is ackno= wledged or confirmed by the registrant via a process that can be determined = by each registrar. If the registered name holder does not confirm the publi= cation, the Organization field can be redacted or the field contents deleted= at the option of the registrar.=20 - The implementation will have a phase-in period to allow registrars th= e time to deal with existing registrations and develop procedures. - In the meantime, registrars will be permitted to redact the Organizat= ion Field.=20 Implementation advice: the implementation review team should consider the f= ollowing implementation model discussed by the EPDP Team: For existing registrations, the first step will be to confirm the correctne= ss / accuracy of the existing Organization field data.=20 For the period between the adoption of EPDP policy recommendations and some= future =E2=80=9Cdate certain=E2=80=9D to be determined by the implementation review: 1) Registrars will redact the Organization field 2) Registrars will contact the registered name holders that have entered = data in the Organization field and request review and confirmation that the = data is correct.=20 a. If the registered name holder confirms or corrects the data the data = will remain in the Organization field. b. If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Reg= istrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents. If n= ecessary, the registration will be re-assigned to the Registered Name Holde= r. 3) If Registrar chooses to publish the Registrant Organization field, it = will notify these registered name holders that of the =E2=80=9Cdate certain,=E2=80=9D th= e Organization field will be treated as non-personal data and be published,= for those Registered Names Holders who have confirmed the data and agreed t= o publication. For new registrations, beginning with the =E2=80=9Cdate certain=E2=80=9D: 1) New registrations will present some disclosure, disclaimer or confirma= tion when data is entered in the Organization field. Registrars are free to = develop their own process (e.g., opt-in, pop-up advisory or question, locke= d/grayed out field). 2) If the registered name holder confirms the data and agrees to publicat= ion:=20 a. the data in the Organization field will be published, b. The Organization will be listed as the Registered Name Holder. c. The name of the registered name holder (a natural person) will be lis= ted as the point of contact at the Registrant Organization. Actions: Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns = about these modifications and/or what other aspects of this recommendation s= hould be discussed.=20 Deadline for comment: Tuesday 29 Jan.=20 Thank you and best regards, Kurt --B_3631500811_143444559 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Everyone:

In the ongoing = and seemingly never-ending attempt to close discussion on Recommendations f= or the Final Report via email discussion, below please find amended wording= for Recommendation 9, having to do with the publication / redaction of the Organization field. 

After posting o= f the initial version, I read the email list comment and was drawn to James= =E2=80=99 rather clean outline, as opposed to my less clear earlier proposa= l. Therefore, I took the liberty of reorganizing the proposed Recommendation somewhat, taking into account not only James s= tructure but also the email comments before and after that (as well as the = meeting notes). The result is below. I also placed the procedure itself as = part of our =E2=80=9Cimplementation advice=E2=80=9D as there will be operational details to figure out. The implementation eff= ort can ensure that those =E2=80=9Cdetails=E2=80=9D are consonant with the = policy goals.


Proposed Recommendation #9

The EPDP Team recommends that:

-      The Organizatio= n field will be published if that publication is acknowledged or confirmed = by the registrant via a process that can be determined by each registrar. I= f the registered name holder does not confirm the publication, the Organization field can be redacted or the fie= ld contents deleted at the option of the registrar. 

-      The implementat= ion will have a phase-in period to allow registrars the time to deal with e= xisting registrations and develop procedures.

-      In the meantime= , registrars will be permitted to redact the Organization Field. 


Implementation advice: the implementation review team should cons= ider the following implementation model discussed by the EPDP Team:<= /p>

For existing registrations, the first step will be = to confirm the correctness / accuracy of the existing Organization field da= ta. 

For the period between the adoption of EPDP policy recommendations a= nd some future =E2=80=9Cdate certain=E2=80=9D to be determined by the imple= mentation review:

1)    Registrars will= redact the Organization field

2)    Registrars will= contact the registered name holders that have entered data in the Organiza= tion field and request review and confirmation that the data is correct.

a.     If the register= ed name holder confirms or corrects the data the data will remain in the Or= ganization field.

b.     If the registra= nt declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the= Organization field, or delete the field contents. If necessary, the regist= ration will be re-assigned to the Registered Name Holder.

3)    If Registrar ch= ooses to publish the Registrant Organization field, it will notify these re= gistered name holders that of the =E2=80=9Cdate certain,=E2=80=9D the Organ= ization field will be treated as non-personal data and be published, for those Registered Names Holders who have confirmed the da= ta and agreed to publication.

For new registrations, beginnin= g with the =E2=80=9Cdate certain=E2=80=9D:

1)    New registratio= ns will present some disclosure, disclaimer or confirmation when data is en= tered in the Organization field. Registrars are free to develop their own p= rocess (e.g., opt-in, pop-up advisory or question, locked/grayed out field).=

2)    If the register= ed name holder confirms the data and agrees to publication:

a.     the data in the= Organization field will be published,<= /p>

b.     The Organizatio= n will be listed as the Registered Name Holder.

c.     The name of the= registered name holder (a natural person) will be listed as the point of c= ontact at the Registrant Organization.<= /p>


Actions: = ;Please indicate on the mailing list whether you have any concerns about th= ese modifications and/or what other aspects of this recommendation sho= uld be discussed.

Deadline for co= mment: Tuesday 29 Jan. 

Thank you and b= est regards,

Kurt

--B_3631500811_143444559-- --B_3631500811_380368774 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"; x-mac-creator=4F50494D Content-ID: <051300D4EF2B884489CA7D8696BF7BF1@pexch112.icann.org> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkduc28tZXBk cC10ZWFtIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KR25zby1lcGRwLXRlYW1AaWNhbm4ub3JnDQpodHRwczovL21t LmljYW5uLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2duc28tZXBkcC10ZWFt --B_3631500811_380368774--