I think the main issue is not whether it is desirable, but whether it is feasible at all, in a way that _fully safeguards_ all affected parties. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:28 PM King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi James,
I’d like to understand your request a bit better.
For many IP purposes, having a reliable email address is necessary to facilitate communication with the RNH, especially since web forms have proven insufficient for many of us. To the IP folks, contactability is an important reason for our work on “the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized *email address*” (Temp Spec, emphasis added). I was concerned (or hopefully confused) to hear the RrSG assert that email contact was not necessary for IP purposes – I’d think we could either take the IPC’s word on that, or attempt to understand each other better.
If we agree that some form of email address is needed, or that we need to understand each other better, let’s proceed accordingly. If not, I’d ask candidly whether we should expect the RrSG to join consensus on a (lawful) requirement to provide an email contact, if the RrSG position is that email is not necessary and the RrSG is unwilling to discuss it further.
*Brian J. King* *He/Him/His*
Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group
T +1 443 761 3726
*clarivate.com <http://clarivate.com>*
Accelerating innovation
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:32 PM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays
Hi folks –
On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement.
In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A. Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere.
Thanks—
J.
Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.