Hi All-

This language is mostly ok (thanks Caitlin!), but the parenthetical example sideswipes the natural vs. legal debate.   Recommend we change this:

 (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked)

To this:
 (e.g. where data associated with the Privacy/Proxy customer is masked)

Thanks-

J.

-------------
James Bladel
GoDaddy
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 18:48
To: GNSO EPDP
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] language re: affiliated privacy/proxy companies
 

Dear All,

 

Following up on an action item from today’s EPDP call, please find draft language regardingregistrar disclosure of privacy/proxy data to a requestor (section 2.6 of Appendix A of the Temp Spec).For ease of reference, the updated language is italicized.

 

The EPDP Team recommends that in the case of a domain name registration where a Privacy/Proxy service,offered or made available by Registrar or its Affiliates in connection with a registration isused, (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. (emphasis added)

 

Please respond to the list if you have any issues with the above draft language.

 

Best regards,

 

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin