ePDP Team – In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale. Look forward to our discussion tomorrow. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine.... Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Thank you, Stephanie. Let’s discuss on the next call, but I think our key point is that risk/exposure cannot be decoupled from some degree of judgement. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:37:42 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4 I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine.... Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote: ePDP Team – In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale. Look forward to our discussion tomorrow. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks James. I think these edits are good (concurring with Milton and Stephanie on the suggestions as well) But legitimate purposes cannot be open ended, therefore in my opinion you cannot have "including but not limited to" in 4.4.8. we can discuss tomorrow. On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:32 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Thank you, Stephanie. Let’s discuss on the next call, but I think our key point is that risk/exposure cannot be decoupled from some degree of judgement.
------------- James Bladel GoDaddy ------------------------------ *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:37:42 PM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4
I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine....
Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team@icann.orghttps://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
-- Farzaneh
I think this language is excellent; thanks to those who drafted it. I support the edits that Stephanie, Milton, and Farzaneh have suggested. Best wishes, Ayden
On 6 Sep 2018, at 05:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks James. I think these edits are good (concurring with Milton and Stephanie on the suggestions as well) But legitimate purposes cannot be open ended, therefore in my opinion you cannot have "including but not limited to" in 4.4.8.
we can discuss tomorrow.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:32 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Thank you, Stephanie. Let’s discuss on the next call, but I think our key point is that risk/exposure cannot be decoupled from some degree of judgement.
------------- James Bladel GoDaddy ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:37:42 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4
I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine....
Stephanie Perrin
On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
James Bladel
GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
--
Farzaneh
Hello Farzaneh, all, That point has been made by the Art 29 group in its letter of April 11, 2018. I quote: "Moreover, it notes that the purposes must be defined in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner. Use of the word “include” suggests that not all purposes are made explicit, which would also be incompatible with article 5(1)b GDPR." So we should remove the „including, but not limited to“ and those who want things added to the list should speak up. An easy fix. I support the other edits. Best, Thomas
Am 06.09.2018 um 05:24 schrieb farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>:
Thanks James. I think these edits are good (concurring with Milton and Stephanie on the suggestions as well) But legitimate purposes cannot be open ended, therefore in my opinion you cannot have "including but not limited to" in 4.4.8.
we can discuss tomorrow.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:32 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Thank you, Stephanie. Let’s discuss on the next call, but I think our key point is that risk/exposure cannot be decoupled from some degree of judgement.
------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:37:42 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4
I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine....
Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
James Bladel
GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>-- Farzaneh
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi Everyone: Thanks for the thoughtful work to the RrSG team. We are 30 minutes out from the meeting. I suggest the following way to discuss our discussion of 4.4. When you raise your hand to speak to the document, please be prepared to express your view on each point in it. I’d like to “go around the room” once to get each group's view so that we can capture the sum of the issues. This won’t be a time for contesting someone else’s view, I think we want to gauge where we are as a group. Then, coming from the initial “go-around” we can identify each of the issues raised and discuss them. Please take some time to arrange your comments in this fashion. Thx & Best regards, Kurt
On Sep 6, 2018, at 12:32 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Thank you, Stephanie. Let’s discuss on the next call, but I think our key point is that risk/exposure cannot be decoupled from some degree of judgement.
------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:37:42 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4
I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine....
Stephanie Perrin
On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ 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
Good morning Kurt & Team – I support this proposal, let’s give it a shot. I was planning to present the RrSG edits during our call today, so Kurt/Staff please let me know if you still need this from me. J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 05:32 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4 Hi Everyone: Thanks for the thoughtful work to the RrSG team. We are 30 minutes out from the meeting. I suggest the following way to discuss our discussion of 4.4. When you raise your hand to speak to the document, please be prepared to express your view on each point in it. I’d like to “go around the room” once to get each group's view so that we can capture the sum of the issues. This won’t be a time for contesting someone else’s view, I think we want to gauge where we are as a group. Then, coming from the initial “go-around” we can identify each of the issues raised and discuss them. Please take some time to arrange your comments in this fashion. Thx & Best regards, Kurt On Sep 6, 2018, at 12:32 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Thank you, Stephanie. Let’s discuss on the next call, but I think our key point is that risk/exposure cannot be decoupled from some degree of judgement. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:37:42 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4 I think these are good edits. One small point in the last part dealing with non-binding arbitration....I would suggest that you should say "the registrar's interpretation of the law takes precedence", as each side will inevitably have its own interpretation of the law, but only one side is going to get the fine.... Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-05 19:42, James M. Bladel wrote: ePDP Team – In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale. Look forward to our discussion tomorrow. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I also think most of these are good edits, and greatly improve the clarity of the temp spec. Moreover they are quite consistent with Amr’s critique of 4.4.2. There is one part I am not sure of, however. Under 4.4.8 I do not know what is meant by “tailored mechanisms designed to protect intellectual property interests…” At the very least I think we want to protect intellectual property rights, not “interests.” From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 7:43 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4 ePDP Team – In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale. Look forward to our discussion tomorrow. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
Thanks, Milton. I’m sure we’d take that as a friendly clarification. But there are other issues in this section on which we couldn’t fully agree. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy ________________________________ From: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 7:08:16 PM To: James M. Bladel; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: RE: RrSG edits -- Section 4.4 I also think most of these are good edits, and greatly improve the clarity of the temp spec. Moreover they are quite consistent with Amr’s critique of 4.4.2. There is one part I am not sure of, however. Under 4.4.8 I do not know what is meant by “tailored mechanisms designed to protect intellectual property interests…” At the very least I think we want to protect intellectual property rights, not “interests.” From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 7:43 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4 ePDP Team – In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale. Look forward to our discussion tomorrow. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
Thanks James and team for these redlines - having something concrete to review and discuss is always a plus. Based on a quick read (very late in the day) I have several concerns and questions. I look forward to your overview of these proposed updates tomorrow and will make it a priority to take a closer look at the details and consult with my team after the Thursday call. Good night. Alex On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-- ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009
Hi James, Thanks again for the time and effort you and the Registrars put into this redline - it is appreciated and helpful IMO. On the call this morning I quickly ran through several comments on your redline and now that I'm well caffeinated and had a chance to quickly sync with my team I wanted to repeat them here on the list. 1) Temp Spec section 4.4 address Processing of all kinds so I do not agree that purposes (in the subsections) that are somehow related to access should be removed or addressed in the access model (4.4.2, 4.4.9 for example). The GDPR requires that we define/set a specific set of purposes up front for all Processing related to gTLD registration data. (See letters from Art 29) While i understand and agree that discussions around access models or implementation or accreditation won't happen until we answer several gating questions, we must still define specific purposes for lawful processing for all types of processing, including access, now. 2) Regarding 4.4 itself, I suggest we continue to work on updates to this section on the thread started by Thomas shortly before our call today and my reply. 3) We do not agree with the removal of 4.4.2. However given you clarified that these purposes are for Registrars only and in light of the discussion on the need to create several sub-sections under 4.4 to ensure we do not conflate purposes of various controllers and 3rd parties we believe Section 4.4.2 would be better suited in the ICANN purposes sub-section. 4) We also disagree with the updates to 4.4.8. Mostly because it is not clear to us what "tailored mechanisms designed to protect intellectual property interests (as provide[d]) for by Section 4.4)" means. If the intent was to refer to section 4.4.12, which references the URS and UDRP as the "tailored mechanisms", then we would also object as URS and UDRP only address a subset of intellectual property interests. We also have an issue with the footnote that states that the items in 4.4.8 "go beyond the original purpose (domain name registrations) for collecting data." but perhaps this can also be addressed when we move purposes into their respective sections. 5) Finally we believe that any dispute resolution capabilities for registrars and registries need to be thought out carefully, and reserve further comment until more details are known. Thanks!! Alex On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:19 PM Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> wrote:
Thanks James and team for these redlines - having something concrete to review and discuss is always a plus.
Based on a quick read (very late in the day) I have several concerns and questions. I look forward to your overview of these proposed updates tomorrow and will make it a priority to take a closer look at the details and consult with my team after the Thursday call.
Good night.
Alex
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
ePDP Team –
In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-- ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009
-- ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009
Hi James- To add to Alex’s comments, as I stated on the call this morning and as Thomas also then stated, the GDPR needs to be the base line and referenced, as this EPDP was set up in relation of GDPR implementation, as it is the global guide in data protection laws as present. Other data protection laws active and future can be referenced for future amendment purposes thus we do not support the “applicable laws” language. Thanks, Diane On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Hi James, Thanks again for the time and effort you and the Registrars put into this redline - it is appreciated and helpful IMO. On the call this morning I quickly ran through several comments on your redline and now that I'm well caffeinated and had a chance to quickly sync with my team I wanted to repeat them here on the list. 1) Temp Spec section 4.4 address Processing of all kinds so I do not agree that purposes (in the subsections) that are somehow related to access should be removed or addressed in the access model (4.4.2, 4.4.9 for example). The GDPR requires that we define/set a specific set of purposes up front for all Processing related to gTLD registration data. (See letters from Art 29) While i understand and agree that discussions around access models or implementation or accreditation won't happen until we answer several gating questions, we must still define specific purposes for lawful processing for all types of processing, including access, now. 2) Regarding 4.4 itself, I suggest we continue to work on updates to this section on the thread started by Thomas shortly before our call today and my reply. 3) We do not agree with the removal of 4.4.2. However given you clarified that these purposes are for Registrars only and in light of the discussion on the need to create several sub-sections under 4.4 to ensure we do not conflate purposes of various controllers and 3rd parties we believe Section 4.4.2 would be better suited in the ICANN purposes sub-section. 4) We also disagree with the updates to 4.4.8. Mostly because it is not clear to us what "tailored mechanisms designed to protect intellectual property interests (as provide[d]) for by Section 4.4)" means. If the intent was to refer to section 4.4.12, which references the URS and UDRP as the "tailored mechanisms", then we would also object as URS and UDRP only address a subset of intellectual property interests. We also have an issue with the footnote that states that the items in 4.4.8 "go beyond the original purpose (domain name registrations) for collecting data." but perhaps this can also be addressed when we move purposes into their respective sections. 5) Finally we believe that any dispute resolution capabilities for registrars and registries need to be thought out carefully, and reserve further comment until more details are known. Thanks!! Alex On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:19 PM Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Thanks James and team for these redlines - having something concrete to review and discuss is always a plus. Based on a quick read (very late in the day) I have several concerns and questions. I look forward to your overview of these proposed updates tomorrow and will make it a priority to take a closer look at the details and consult with my team after the Thursday call. Good night. Alex On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: ePDP Team – In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale. Look forward to our discussion tomorrow. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy _______________________________________________ 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> -- ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 -- ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 _______________________________________________ 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
On 07-09-18 02:39, Plaut, Diane wrote:
To add to Alex’s comments, as I stated on the call this morning
Just a very minor matter, but referring to past events only in the context of your own local timezone leaves people elsewhere in the world somewhat perplexed as to what event you might be referring to. Julf
James, several points: - I understand the removal of 4.4.4 and I agree with your footnote 2 that communications between the registrar and registrant does not need WHOIS. But you also eliminated the Registry and they have no privileged information about the customer. - I strongly disagree with your changes to 4.4.8. I agree that ICANN does not provide a framework for law enforcement as 4.4.9 said, but it does have a responsibility to support such a framework. - I agree that 4.4.7 was badly worded in referring only to the publication. 4.4.5 already references the technical contact, but you also omitted the admin contact which in large organizations may have great value. Perhaps we will get to the point of discussing natural persons vs legla persons at some stage, but right now the Temp Spec treats them as the same and we need to accommodate that. - I do not disagree with the intent of your addition to 4.4.13, but do not agree that it belongs in a section on contractual compliance access to date. There is probably more, but it is getting late so I will leave it at that for the moment. Alan At 05/09/2018 07:42 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
ePDP Team < In preparation for tomorrowâs call, please find attached a redline PDF of our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with âcleanâ language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these edits, along with our rationale.
Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
Thanks
J.
------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alex Deacon -
Ayden Férdeline -
farzaneh badii -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Kurt Pritz -
Mueller, Milton L -
Plaut, Diane -
Stephanie Perrin -
Thomas Rickert