Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA
No it does not. "Any contact information" might be Tech contact which is not a contact for the RNH itself. And it does not require there to be both telephone and e-mail. And that is the current minimum contact requirement. My version says that and also gives contracted parties full flexibility in implementing. Immediately following this meeting, I will be driving all day and will be out of contact. Alan At 07/02/2019 09:25 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Okay, thanks Alan. "Published" was the wrong word for me to use then in my explanation, because you are right that we are talking about collection as well, but I still think the language that I proposed addresses both of our concerns? Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:13 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: At 07/02/2019 08:41 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Alan G., I hope to find a compromise here so that we can move forward, but I find your language to be too prescriptive. I don't understand why we'd call out "voice telephone and email contact information"? I used those terms because they are the ones that are used in the RAA and my understanding was that being specific as to which fields we are talking about. Surely if these are fields that are mandatory for a registrant to provide, in asking for full contact information (of mandatory fields), they would be covered? No, that is the entire point. In the 2009 RAA, there were not considered mandatory. That is why they may be missing as stated in the opening clause. I also have concerns with the sentence, "Registrars may, at their option, either not collect Administrative Contact fields, or collect them at the option of the Registered Name Holder." I believe this sentence is redundant. It is not redundant and not prescriptive. It is telling registrars (and registrants) that they have complete flexibility on how they treat these fileds once our policy is active. As it stands, we have another recommendation that allows a RNH to request that additional data elements be published. This has nothing to do with publishing. It is about whether the fields exist at all and whether they need to be collected. And it is about protecting registrant in the case of a Rr/Ry failure. Alan May I suggest the following language: Redline: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact information but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains the Registered Name Holder voice telephone and e-mail contact information. Prior to the Administrative Contact fields being eliminated, Registrars may, at their option, either not collect Administrative Contact fields, or collect them at the option of the Registered Name Holder. Clean: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information. Best wishes, Ayden â€�â��â��â��â��â�144;â€�â�� Original Message â��â��#144;â��â��â��â��â�� On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:59 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Hi Ayden, The issue is not collecting and maintaining. It would be foolish for registrars to have to collect Admin data post-EDPD-policy implementation if the intent is to get rid of the field. All of those registrations where they might collect Admin data, we know that the Registrant contact details are mandatory (since they would be subject to 2013 rules). The issue is we cannot eliminate the field from the database structure (and eliminate disclosing it when applicable) until we make sure there are no empty registrant contact fields. Moreover, as I pointed out in the my previous message, a registration might include Technical contact info but that is not sufficient to replace Registrant/Admin. Here is something that will work. "Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be Administrative Contact information but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains the Registered Name Holder voice telephone and e-mail contact information. Prior to the Administrative Contact fields being eliminated, Registrars may, at their option, either not collect Administrative Contact fields, or collect them at the option of the Registered Name Holder." This would ensure that we do not eliminate the Admin fields until we can ensure that every registration (and particularly every registration in the escrow files) has SOME contact info for someone responsible for the registration. That protects the registrant, but does not required Registrars to keep collecting data that is being phased out. The list of fields to be collected would have to note this recommendation instead of just omitting the Admin fields. Alan At 06/02/2019 05:57 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Alan, I have tried to strike a balance between the text I shared earlier and the comments you have raised here. Here is what I have come up with: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, prior to eliminating the collection and maintenance of the current Administrative Contact field, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain contact information. Can you live with this? I have removed the reference to "some contact", which you found vague, and "name", because you noted this was unnecessary given the RAA. However I have still deleted the last sentence, because I do think it is redundant. Best wishes, Ayden â��â��44;â��â��â��â��â�4;â€� Original Message â��â�4;ââ�€�â��â��â��â�â�ââ�¬� On Wednesday, y, February 6, 2019 5:27 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Now that I have posting rights again: Two comments on "... will contain the name and contact information of some contact" - It is not really necessary to mention "name" since the 2009 RAA did require a Name field for the Registrant. - "some contact" is too wide, since we are still requiring (optionally) a technical contact which may not be the entity responsible for the registration (for instance it my be the hosting provider). Since we are also eliminating the Billing fields, the Registrant is the only remaining non-technical contact, so replacing the phrase with: "... will contain full Registrant Contact information" That also eliminates the need for the e.g. Regarding Ayden's recommendation to eliminate the final sentence, I do not agree. We need to make it clear that ensuring the Registrant contact information being present is a gating requirement to elimination of the Admin fields. We could in fact stop collection admin contact details before that, because for all new or changing registrations the 2013 rules apply which ensures Registrant data. Alan At 06/02/2019 06:58 AM, Ayden FÃÃ�©rdeline wrote: Thanks, Marika. I have some suggested edits, which are stylistic and not substantive: Redline: Recognizing that in the cases of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, prior to in eliminating the collection and maintenance of the current Aadministrative Ccontact field, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact., e.g., the Registered Name Holder. This will need to happen before the administrative contact is eliminated. Clean: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, prior to eliminating the collection and maintenance of the current Administrative Contact field, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact. Best wishes, Ayden FÃÃ�©rdeline
â��â��â�¢€�â��¬�ââ144;âÃ�¢�¬�â��â�� Ori; Ori; Original Message â�â��â�â�â��â��â�¢‚¬�â�� On Tuesday, Febrruary 5, 2019 66:18 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: In line with the comments made, would the following work for inclusion in the Final Report: New Recommendation: Recognizing that in the cases of some registrations, there may be an Admin Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, in eliminating the collection and maintenance of the administrative contact, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact, e.g., the Registered Name Holder. This will need to happen before the administrative contact is eliminated. If you have any concerns about this proposed language, please share this with the mailing list by Wednesday 6 February COB. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 18:20 To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Kurt, that would be fine. But that is not "elimination of the field". The registrar "ensuring" must happen before the field disappears. We have an escrow program to protect registrants against failures in registrars and registries. The escrow data going forward must always include contact info. I am just about to name an alternate for tomorrow and will lose posting privileges to this list. Alan At 04/02/2019 07:07 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Thanks for this Alan: Might another approach be to write into the policy something to the effect that, ÃÃ�¢��Recognizing thatat iat in thehe cases of s some registrations there is an ÃÃ�¢��Adminin ContactÃÃ�¢�but n€but no Registered Name ame Holder or any otherr contact, it is required that, in the eliminating the collection and maintenance of the administrative contact, the registrar will ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact, e.g., the registered name holder.ÃÃ�¢�� Something like that to let eaach registrar manage its own situation and also to give compliance a way to monitor registrations to ensure that there is contact information. Best regards, Kurt On Feb 4, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Another alternative is to say that the Admin contacts are not to be collected for new, changed or transferred registrations (which are all subject to the 2013 RAA requirement for Registrant contact data) and that the fields will be eliminated once all registrars confirm that all of the registrations under their sponsorship have Registrant contact information. Alan At 04/02/2019 05:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I do not believe that we can eliminate the Admin contact information (as currently recommended) without a concrete idea of how many registrations might be left without contact information and just a note that implementation should investigate the potential impact. If that investigation (if it is even possible given the data that ICANN possesses) we to show that there are a substantive number of such registrations, what could they do? We know that registrars have resisted the requirement to take corrective action on registration (which is why the validation/verification requirements in the 2013 RAA only apply when there are changes). If we eliminate Admin fields, we must provide for ensuring that all registrations have contact information within a relatively short period of time. The easy fix given the timeline is to not eliminate the Admin fields. Alan At 04/02/2019 08:19 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear Alan G., all, In relation to the question regarding the 2009 RAA you formulated a while back, note that ICANN Org had already provided a response: Alan GreenbergÃÃ�â��Ã�Ã�¢Â¢��s Questistion: br> < The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org confirm that all registrars are now operating under the 2013 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org provide its interpretation of the requirement under the RAA Data retention Specification 1.1 whether registrars, as part of their adoption of the 2013 RAA, are required to ensure that Registrant contact email and telephone fields are completed, or whether the phrase "shall maintain that information" (which was validly allowed to be blank at registration time) allows them to preserve any empty Registrant contact fields. If the former, is Contractual Compliance taking any action to ensure that registrars fulfill this obligation? ICANN org Compliance Response: Registrars are not required to collect additional contact information for 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) registrations. However, registrars may be required to update existing contact information for 2009 RAA registrations when there is a triggering event under the 2013 RAA that may require them to do so (e.g., the domain name is an inbound transfer, the registrant changes, there is information to suggest the current contact information is incorrect). This response is also posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ. Please let us know if this does not sufficiently address your question. In order to ensure this issue is not overlooked during the implementation phase, would it be helpful to add a sentence along the following lines in the implementation part of the report: ÃÃ�â��Ã�Ã�¢��‚¢€œAs parart of the implplplplementation, consideration needs toto be given to the potential impact of these policy recommendations on legacy registrations that without additional mitigation could end up with no contact information if the administrative contact is the only information currently available (this could be the case for a limited number of registrations that are still under the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement)ÃÃ�â��ÙÃ�Ã�¢��? ;
br>
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support � GNSO, Internet Corporation fforr Asssiggned Namees and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Alan G., Thank you for your response. I still feel that your language is too prescriptive. If our shared goal is to "give contracted parties full flexibility in implementing" this recommendation, I think my text does that better, because it does not outline what specific fields the contracted parties must collect, deferring to their judgement instead to ensure that they have contact information for a Registered Name Holder. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 7, 2019 11:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
No it does not.
"Any contact information" might be Tech contact which is not a contact for the RNH itself. And it does not require there to be both telephone and e-mail. And that is the current minimum contact requirement.
My version says that and also gives contracted parties full flexibility in implementing.
Immediately following this meeting, I will be driving all day and will be out of contact.
Alan
At 07/02/2019 09:25 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Okay, thanks Alan. "Published" was the wrong word for me to use then in my explanation, because you are right that we are talking about collection as well, but I still think the language that I proposed addresses both of our concerns?
Ayden
â€â€â€â€â€â€â€ Original Message â€â€â€â€â€â€â€ On Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:13 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 07/02/2019 08:41 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Hi Alan G.,
I hope to find a compromise here so that we can move forward, but I find your language to be too prescriptive. I don't understand why we'd call out "voice telephone and email contact information"?
I used those terms because they are the ones that are used in the RAA and my understanding was that being specific as to which fields we are talking about.
Surely if these are fields that are mandatory for a registrant to provide, in asking for full contact information (of mandatory fields), they would be covered?
No, that is the entire point. In the 2009 RAA, there were not considered mandatory. That is why they may be missing as stated in the opening clause.
I also have concerns with the sentence, "Registrars may, at their option, either not collect Administrative Contact fields, or collect them at the option of the Registered Name Holder." I believe this sentence is redundant.
It is not redundant and not prescriptive. It is telling registrars (and registrants) that they have complete flexibility on how they treat these fileds once our policy is active.
As it stands, we have another recommendation that allows a RNH to request that additional data elements be published.
This has nothing to do with publishing. It is about whether the fields exist at all and whether they need to be collected. And it is about protecting registrant in the case of a Rr/Ry failure.
Alan
May I suggest the following language:
Redline:
Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact information but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains the Registered Name Holder voice telephone and e-mail contact information. Prior to the Administrative Contact fields being eliminated, Registrars may, at their option, either not collect Administrative Contact fields, or collect them at the option of the Registered Name Holder.
Clean:
Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
Best wishes,
Ayden
â€â€Ã¢€Ã¢€Ã¢€Ã¢€144;â€â€ Original Message â€Ã¢€#144;â€Ã¢€Ã¢€Ã¢€Ã¢€ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:59 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Hi Ayden,
The issue is not collecting and maintaining. It would be foolish for registrars to have to collect Admin data post-EDPD-policy implementation if the intent is to get rid of the field. All of those registrations where they might collect Admin data, we know that the Registrant contact details are mandatory (since they would be subject to 2013 rules).
The issue is we cannot eliminate the field from the database structure (and eliminate disclosing it when applicable) until we make sure there are no empty registrant contact fields.
Moreover, as I pointed out in the my previous message, a registration might include Technical contact info but that is not sufficient to replace Registrant/Admin.
Here is something that will work.
"Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be Administrative Contact information but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains the Registered Name Holder voice telephone and e-mail contact information. Prior to the Administrative Contact fields being eliminated, Registrars may, at their option, either not collect Administrative Contact fields, or collect them at the option of the Registered Name Holder."
This would ensure that we do not eliminate the Admin fields until we can ensure that every registration (and particularly every registration in the escrow files) has SOME contact info for someone responsible for the registration. That protects the registrant, but does not required Registrars to keep collecting data that is being phased out.
The list of fields to be collected would have to note this recommendation instead of just omitting the Admin fields.
Alan
At 06/02/2019 05:57 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Hi Alan,
I have tried to strike a balance between the text I shared earlier and the comments you have raised here. Here is what I have come up with:
Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, prior to eliminating the collection and maintenance of the current Administrative Contact field, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain contact information.
Can you live with this?
I have removed the reference to "some contact", which you found vague, and "name", because you noted this was unnecessary given the RAA. However I have still deleted the last sentence, because I do think it is redundant.
Best wishes,
Ayden
â€ÃƒÂ¢€44;â€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢â4;†Original Message â€ÃƒÂ¢€4;ââ‚ۉ€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢€ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢‚¬ On Wednesday, y, February 6, 2019 5:27 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Now that I have posting rights again: > > Two comments on "... will contain the name and contact information of some contact" > > - It is not really necessary to mention "name" since the 2009 RAA did require a Name field for the Registrant. > > - "some contact" is too wide, since we are still requiring (optionally) a technical contact which may not be the entity responsible for the registration (for instance it my be the hosting provider). > > Since we are also eliminating the Billing fields, the Registrant is the only remaining non-technical contact, so replacing the phrase with: > > "... will contain full Registrant Contact information" > > That also eliminates the need for the e.g. > > Regarding Ayden's recommendation to eliminate the final sentence, I do not agree. We need to make it clear that ensuring the Registrant contact information being present is a gating requirement to elimination of the Admin fields. We could in fact stop collection admin contact details before that, because for all new or changing registrations the 2013 rules apply which ensures Registrant data. > > Alan > > At 06/02/2019 06:58 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Thanks, Marika. I have some suggested edits, which are stylistic and not substantive: >> >> Redline: >> >> Recognizing that in the cases of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, prior to in eliminating the collection and maintenance of the current Aadministrative Ccontact field, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact., e.g., the Registered Name Holder. This will need to happen before the administrative contact is eliminated. Clean:Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, prior to eliminating the collection and maintenance of the current Administrative Contact field, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >>> >> â€ÃƒÆ’¢€ÃƒÆ’¢€Â¢â‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢€Â¬ÃƒÆ’¢â144;âۉ€ÃƒÆ’¢€ Ori; Ori; Original Message â€ÃƒÆ’¢€ÃƒÆ’¢€ÃƒÆ’¢€ÃƒÆ’¢€ÃƒÆ’¢€ÃƒÂ¢‚¢‚¬Ã¢€ >> On Tuesday, Febrruary 5, 2019 66:18 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: >> >>> In line with the comments made, would the following work for inclusion in the Final Report: >>> >>> New Recommendation: >>> >>> Recognizing that in the cases of some registrations, there may be an Admin Contact but no Registered Name Holder or any other contact, the EPDP Team recommends that, in eliminating the collection and maintenance of the administrative contact, the Registrar MUST ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact, e.g., the Registered Name Holder. This will need to happen before the administrative contact is eliminated. >>> >>> If you have any concerns about this proposed language, please share this with the mailing list by Wednesday 6 February COB. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Caitlin, Berry and Marika >>> >>> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 18:20 >>> To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> >>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> >>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA >>> >>> Kurt, that would be fine. But that is not "elimination of the field". The registrar "ensuring" must happen before the field disappears. >>> >>> We have an escrow program to protect registrants against failures in registrars and registries. The escrow data going forward must always include contact info. >>> >>> I am just about to name an alternate for tomorrow and will lose posting privileges to this list. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> At 04/02/2019 07:07 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for this Alan:Might another approach be to write into the policy something to the effect that, “Recognizing thatat iat in thehe cases of s some registrations there is an “Adminin Contactâ€but n€but no Registered Name ame Holder or any otherr contact, it is required that, in the eliminating the collection and maintenance of the administrative contact, the registrar will ensure that each registration will contain the name and contact information of some contact, e.g., the registered name holder.â€Something like that to let eaach registrar manage its own situation and also to give compliance a way to monitor registrations to ensure that there is contact information.Best regards,Kurt >>> >>> On Feb 4, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:Another alternative is to say that the Admin contacts are not to be collected for new, changed or transferred registrations (which are all subject to the 2013 RAA requirement for Registrant contact data) and that the fields will be eliminated once all registrars confirm that all of the registrations under their sponsorship have Registrant contact information.AlanAt 04/02/2019 05:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>> >>> I do not believe that we can eliminate the Admin contact information (as currently recommended) without a concrete idea of how many registrations might be left without contact information and just a note that implementation should investigate the potential impact. If that investigation (if it is even possible given the data that ICANN possesses) we to show that there are a substantive number of such registrations, what could they do? We know that registrars have resisted the requirement to take corrective action on registration (which is why the validation/verification requirements in the 2013 RAA only apply when there are changes).If we eliminate Admin fields, we must provide for ensuring that all registrations have contact information within a relatively short period of time.The easy fix given the timeline is to not eliminate the Admin fields.AlanAt 04/02/2019 08:19 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >>> >>> Dear Alan G., all, In relation to the question regarding the 2009 RAA you formulated a while back, note that ICANN Org had already provided a response: Alan Greenberg⢀™s Questistion:br><The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org confirm that all registrars are now operating under the 2013 RAA.The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org provide its interpretation of the requirement under the RAA Data retention Specification 1.1 whether registrars, as part of their adoption of the 2013 RAA, are required to ensure that Registrant contact email and telephone fields are completed, or whether the phrase "shall maintain that information" (which was validly allowed to be blank at registration time) allows them to preserve any empty Registrant contact fields. If the former, is Contractual Compliance taking any action to ensure that registrars fulfill this obligation? ICANN org Compliance Response: Registrars are not required to collect additional contact information for 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) registrations. However, registrars may be required to update existing contact information for 2009 RAA registrations when there is a triggering event under the 2013 RAA that may require them to do so (e.g., the domain name is an inbound transfer, the registrant changes, there is information to suggest the current contact information is incorrect). This response is also posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ. Please let us know if this does not sufficiently address your question. In order to ensure this issue is not overlooked during the implementation phase, would it be helpful to add a sentence along the following lines in the implementation part of the report: â€Å‚¢€œAs parart of the implplplplementation, consideration needs toto be given to the potential impact of these policy recommendations on legacy registrations that without additional mitigation could end up with no contact information if the administrative contact is the only information currently available (this could be the case for a limited number of registrations that are still under the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement)ÃÆ’Ù¢€? ;>br>> Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika KoningsVice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation fforr Asssiggned Namees and Numbers (ICANN)Email: marika.konings@icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSOFind out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...). _______________________________________________Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team >>> _______________________________________________Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Ayden, Alan, all, Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
Thanks Marika, that language would work for me. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:07 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Ayden, Alan, all,
Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden:
Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA
Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
Thanks Marika, As long as we can be sure that "Registered Name Holder contact information" is interpreted as requiring both the phine number and e-mail, I am fine with that. Note that the list of RDS fields which currently omits Admin contacts needs to be suitably annotated since the date at which we implement the new policy could come before all registrations are known to be ok. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 7, 2019 1:07:35 PM EST, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Ayden, Alan, all, Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
Folks – I appreciate that this sounds easy on the outside, but from a Registrar perspective we can only take a “best guess” approach here. For example, we could detect contact roles like “Domain” or “Administrator”, but beyond a few obvious field values, it’s going to be hit or miss. Also note that the Registered Name Holder is the entity that executes the Registration Agreement, so we also need to clear this with our legal folks as to whether or not these changes rise to the level of a Re-assignement of that contract, and how that should be handled. Bottom line - It’s critical that whatever policy recommendations we make recognize these realities and provide Registrars some flexibility to make intelligence adaptations that suit their customers. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:32 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Thanks Marika, As long as we can be sure that "Registered Name Holder contact information" is interpreted as requiring both the phine number and e-mail, I am fine with that. Note that the list of RDS fields which currently omits Admin contacts needs to be suitably annotated since the date at which we implement the new policy could come before all registrations are known to be ok. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 7, 2019 1:07:35 PM EST, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Ayden, Alan, all, Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
Hi- I support the recommendation. I believe that the issues raised by James can be addressed during the implementation phase. The proposed recommendation does not require a registrar to do anything extra to validate the data beyond what currently exists under the current accuracy obligations under the 2013 RAA. All the best, Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:49 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Folks – I appreciate that this sounds easy on the outside, but from a Registrar perspective we can only take a “best guess” approach here. For example, we could detect contact roles like “Domain” or “Administrator”, but beyond a few obvious field values, it’s going to be hit or miss. Also note that the Registered Name Holder is the entity that executes the Registration Agreement, so we also need to clear this with our legal folks as to whether or not these changes rise to the level of a Re-assignement of that contract, and how that should be handled. Bottom line - It’s critical that whatever policy recommendations we make recognize these realities and provide Registrars some flexibility to make intelligence adaptations that suit their customers. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:32 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Thanks Marika, As long as we can be sure that "Registered Name Holder contact information" is interpreted as requiring both the phine number and e-mail, I am fine with that. Note that the list of RDS fields which currently omits Admin contacts needs to be suitably annotated since the date at which we implement the new policy could come before all registrations are known to be ok. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 7, 2019 1:07:35 PM EST, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Ayden, Alan, all, Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
Sounds logical to me. Stephanie On 2019-02-07 13:07, Marika Konings wrote: Ayden, Alan, all, Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden: Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com><mailto:icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com><mailto:icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com><mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information. _______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Ayden Férdeline -
James M. Bladel -
Margie Milam -
Marika Konings -
Stephanie Perrin