Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report
All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though. Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..” Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.” Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope. Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172 Milton Mueller
Milton, All, I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests. We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations. By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language. In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward. I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room. The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks. A major change to the intent of a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed. Regards, Alex On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though.
Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..”
Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call
Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads:
“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to:
“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.”
Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope.
Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172
Milton Mueller
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I think the awkwardness can be resolved simply by changing “standardized access to non-public registration data portion” to “standardized access to [the] non-public registration data portion”. Agree with Alex that we should not revise the compromise verbiage beyond the addition of “the”, above. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deacon Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:02 AM To: milton@gatech.edu Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report Milton, All, I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests. We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations. By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language. In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward. I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room. The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks. A major change to the intent of a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed. Regards, Alex On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though. Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..” Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.” Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope. Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172 Milton Mueller _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C8b66eb40e37f44b1a15c08d64d7ff8a7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636781609363227842&sdata=23J%2FxmsboyqpPu5%2BpwxxV0qbVUgyPnpsxdwu7Mwf8NA%3D&reserved=0>
Hi, I recall that there were questions/concerns raised by this wording of the recommendation that I don’t believe we ever got around to addressing. I’m not sure what the purpose is of singling out abuse and intellectual property in this recommendation. If there is a reason for doing this, it’d be helpful to understand. I would imagine that a recommendation that reads similar to what Milton suggested would cover both those categories. There are however, other legitimate interests for which lawful disclosure/access to non-public registration data is something we will need to work out in the next phase of the EPDP, apart from abuse and intellectual property. Why do these two get special status in this recommendation? Thanks. Amr
On Nov 18, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
I think the awkwardness can be resolved simply by changing
“standardized access to non-public registration data portion”
to
“standardized access to [the] non-public registration data portion”.
Agree with Alex that we should not revise the compromise verbiage beyond the addition of “the”, above.
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deacon Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:02 AM To: milton@gatech.edu Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report
Milton, All,
I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests. We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations. By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language.
In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward. I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room.
The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks. A major change to the intent of a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed.
Regards,
Alex
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though.
Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..”
Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call
Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads:
“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to:
“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.”
Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope.
Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172
Milton Mueller
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team](https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C8b66eb40e37f44b1a15c08d64d7ff8a7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636781609363227842&sdata=23J%2FxmsboyqpPu5%2BpwxxV0qbVUgyPnpsxdwu7Mwf8NA%3D&reserved=0)
Mark, Quite apart from the “abuse or IP” issue, the whole sentence is an utter mess, from an English language point of view. Look at it: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” The phrase “portion of this EPDP” is nonsensical; the clause “regarding lawful access” is confusingly redundant, it means the same thing as “standardized access, so just add “lawful” to the prior clause; the presence of the word “regarding” twice is about as ugly English as you can get….need I go on? Whatever we decide about the controversial part, this statement needs to be fixed. --MM From: Mark Svancarek (CELA) [mailto:marksv@microsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:07 PM To: Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report I think the awkwardness can be resolved simply by changing “standardized access to non-public registration data portion” to “standardized access to [the] non-public registration data portion”. Agree with Alex that we should not revise the compromise verbiage beyond the addition of “the”, above. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alex Deacon Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:02 AM To: milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report Milton, All, I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests. We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations. By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language. In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward. I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room. The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks. A major change to the intent of a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed. Regards, Alex On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though. Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..” Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.” Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope. Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172 Milton Mueller _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C8b66eb40e37f44b1a15c08d64d7ff8a7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636781609363227842&sdata=23J%2FxmsboyqpPu5%2BpwxxV0qbVUgyPnpsxdwu7Mwf8NA%3D&reserved=0>
I am sorry, Alex, but this was not “compromise language” this was your (partial) stakeholder group’s preferred language. It was never acceptable to us, and we never accepted it. It is also not acceptable to many of the CPH people. If your memory is more complete, you will recall that the term “intellectual property” was part of the problem. ICANN is not in the business of resolving disputes about patents and copyright – the latter is about content – and the term “abuse” is dangerously vague, given that people can call anything they don’t like on the internet “abuse.” If it really pertains to domain name abuse, would already be covered under security and stability. So what does this language add, really? We object to it because it potentially broadens the scope of disclosure requests beyond ICANN’s mission. We have always made that clear and never accepted that language. The true compromise was precisely to NOT be specific at this stage. We will work out the terms and scope of “access” later, after the gating questions are resolved. A general formulation does not preclude your concerns, unless you think that IP infringement is not a “legitimate interest.” Which would surprise me. I for one find it inconceivable that TM and copyright lawbreakers would not at some stage be subject to law enforcement disclosure requests. Sorry, but that wording cannot go into the final interim report. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: Alex Deacon [mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:02 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report Milton, All, I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests. We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations. By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language. In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward. I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room. The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks. A major change to the intent of a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed. Regards, Alex On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though. Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..” Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.” Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope. Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172 Milton Mueller _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear Alex, I recall discussing the language that has apparently ended up as recommendation #2, but I do not remember agreeing to it. It is incomprehensible from a lay reader’s perspective, and achieves none of the clarity we should be striving for. Thus I support Milton’s clear and concise text as follows: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.” NB this will likely be my last post to the list for a couple of weeks. I’ll be replaced by Rod Rasmussen this week, and Greg Aaron next week. As ever, please remember that we do not represent formal SSAC consensus. Best, Benedict.
On 19 Nov 2018, at 01:06, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
I am sorry, Alex, but this was not “compromise language” this was your (partial) stakeholder group’s preferred language. It was never acceptable to us, and we never accepted it. It is also not acceptable to many of the CPH people.
If your memory is more complete, you will recall that the term “intellectual property” was part of the problem. ICANN is not in the business of resolving disputes about patents and copyright – the latter is about content – and the term “abuse” is dangerously vague, given that people can call anything they don’t like on the internet “abuse.” If it really pertains to domain name abuse, would already be covered under security and stability. So what does this language add, really? We object to it because it potentially broadens the scope of disclosure requests beyond ICANN’s mission. We have always made that clear and never accepted that language.
The true compromise was precisely to NOT be specific at this stage. We will work out the terms and scope of “access” later, after the gating questions are resolved. A general formulation does not preclude your concerns, unless you think that IP infringement is not a “legitimate interest.” Which would surprise me. I for one find it inconceivable that TM and copyright lawbreakers would not at some stage be subject to law enforcement disclosure requests.
Sorry, but that wording cannot go into the final interim report.
Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
<> From: Alex Deacon [mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:02 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report
Milton, All,
I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests. We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations. By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language.
In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward. I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room.
The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks. A major change to the intent of a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed.
Regards, Alex
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though.
Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..” Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call
Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads:
“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to:
“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.”
Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope.
Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172
Milton Mueller _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
participants (5)
-
Alex Deacon -
Amr Elsadr -
Benedict Addis -
Mark Svancarek (CELA) -
Mueller, Milton L