Greg et al -

Sarahs’ Alt super powers expired at midnight yesterday and her laptop has now turned back in to a pumpkin.  So I’ll respond to Greg and pose a few questions to ICANN Staff.

Greg - In this case, Yes. “Addressed” = making the disclosure decision, and (if affirmative) providing the Requestor with the requested non-public data.  For clarity, “provided” can mean that ICANN sends the data directly to the Requestor, or somehow causes another (contracted) party to transmit the data to the Requestor.

Many EPDP members have expressed a desire to work with ICANN directly, rather than route requests to  individual Contracted Parties.  They would also prefer to have ICANN make the disclosure determination, as opposed to leaving this to the affected Contracted Party (please jump in if I’m misunderstanding/mischaracterizing this point).

Therefore, the questions we (me, Sarah, Registrars, ePDP) would like to refer to our Staff Liaisons are:

Does ICANN have a clear preference on whether or not it will:
1. Field these requests for non-public data
2. Maintain its own RDS replica database
3. Make a/the determination of the validity of the request
4. Assume responsibility for this decision, in any scenario where ICANN doesn’t hold the data directly and must require a Contracted Party to respond to the Requestor (even if the Contracted Party disputes ICANN’s determination).

We have been dancing around these questions for a quite a while, and I now believe the answers stand between us and progress on our work.  Either ICANN agrees to assume some/all of the role of decision-maker (and accept responsibility for making this decision), or we abandon the “centralized” version of SSAD and instead focus our efforts on developing a distributed model (which is expressly opposed by some “requestor” stakeholders).  

Either way, the is the fork in the road, and we need a clear path forward. If there are no further questions or objections, I recommend that Marika/Staff refer this to our liaisons.  

Thanks—

J.
_______________
James Bladel
GoDaddy
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 14:25
To: 'Sarah Wyld'; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks
 
Notice:This email is from an external sender.

 

When you say “addressed” what do you mean -- that ICANN decides whether the data should be disclosed in response to a query?

 

 

From: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:16 AM
To: Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

 

Hi Greg,

"Responding party" here would mean that requests are received and addressed by ICANN Org. This email focused specifically on questions raised by ICANN Org working in this capacity, I'm interested to see what other scenarios you could expect to occur here.

Thanks.

-- 
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
 

On 9/19/2019 10:12 AM, Greg Aaron wrote:

Sarah, what do you mean by “responding party”?  For example so your scenarios assume that ICANN is acting in a specific legal capacity?

 

I ask because depending on what you mean, there may be other scenarios.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

From: Gnso-epdp-team<gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 3:18 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Questions regarding disclosure risks

 

Hello all,

During the recent EPDP face-to-face meetings in Los Angeles, several members of the working group expressed a desire to position ICANN as the responding party to requests for disclosure of non-public registration data.

In order to fulfill this request, one of two things must be true. Either:

  1. ICANN Org maintains a current (<24 hours) copy of the entire RDS database; or
  2. ICANN has some mechanism (contract clause) to compel the Contracted Party to disclose the data to ICANN or the requestor

These potential scenarios raise the following questions:

  1. In the first scenario, does ICANN accept the legal risks and operational costs of maintaining its own replica of all RDS data for gTLDs? If not, how would those risks and costs be addressed?
  2. In the second scenario, will ICANN “relay” disclosed data between the requestor and the Registry/Registrar?
  3. What should be done in situations where ICANN instructs the Registry/Registrar to disclose data (either to ICANN or the requestor), but the contracted party has determined that the request is not legitimate and refuses? Is this matter referred to ICANN compliance?


Thank you, 

-- 
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392