Hi folks – On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement. In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A. Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere. Thanks— J.
Hi James, I’d like to understand your request a bit better. For many IP purposes, having a reliable email address is necessary to facilitate communication with the RNH, especially since web forms have proven insufficient for many of us. To the IP folks, contactability is an important reason for our work on “the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address” (Temp Spec, emphasis added). I was concerned (or hopefully confused) to hear the RrSG assert that email contact was not necessary for IP purposes – I’d think we could either take the IPC’s word on that, or attempt to understand each other better. If we agree that some form of email address is needed, or that we need to understand each other better, let’s proceed accordingly. If not, I’d ask candidly whether we should expect the RrSG to join consensus on a (lawful) requirement to provide an email contact, if the RrSG position is that email is not necessary and the RrSG is unwilling to discuss it further. Brian J. King He/Him/His Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group T +1 443 761 3726 clarivate.com Accelerating innovation From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:32 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays Hi folks – On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement. In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A. Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere. Thanks— J. Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.
Brian – The Contact Relay/Webform was established in the Temp Spec, and enshrined in the Interim Consensus Policy on Registration Data. Whether, or how well, these systems meet the needs of IP users is a distinctly different topic from the concept of a uniform anonymized email address, which (presumably, if adopted) would eliminate the need for Contact Relays systems. I think the IPC position on the efficacy of these Relay systems (and SSAD, and all of Phase 1 and Phase 2 for that matter) is well understood by this point. Our compressed calendar means we need to narrowly focus on our two charter questions and not be distracted by settled issues from prior phases. Thanks- J. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 15:28 To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays Notice: This email is from an external sender. Hi James, I’d like to understand your request a bit better. For many IP purposes, having a reliable email address is necessary to facilitate communication with the RNH, especially since web forms have proven insufficient for many of us. To the IP folks, contactability is an important reason for our work on “the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address” (Temp Spec, emphasis added). I was concerned (or hopefully confused) to hear the RrSG assert that email contact was not necessary for IP purposes – I’d think we could either take the IPC’s word on that, or attempt to understand each other better. If we agree that some form of email address is needed, or that we need to understand each other better, let’s proceed accordingly. If not, I’d ask candidly whether we should expect the RrSG to join consensus on a (lawful) requirement to provide an email contact, if the RrSG position is that email is not necessary and the RrSG is unwilling to discuss it further. Brian J. King He/Him/His Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group T +1 443 761 3726 clarivate.com Accelerating innovation From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:32 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays Hi folks – On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement. In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A. Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere. Thanks— J. Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.
I think the main issue is not whether it is desirable, but whether it is feasible at all, in a way that _fully safeguards_ all affected parties. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:28 PM King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi James,
I’d like to understand your request a bit better.
For many IP purposes, having a reliable email address is necessary to facilitate communication with the RNH, especially since web forms have proven insufficient for many of us. To the IP folks, contactability is an important reason for our work on “the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized *email address*” (Temp Spec, emphasis added). I was concerned (or hopefully confused) to hear the RrSG assert that email contact was not necessary for IP purposes – I’d think we could either take the IPC’s word on that, or attempt to understand each other better.
If we agree that some form of email address is needed, or that we need to understand each other better, let’s proceed accordingly. If not, I’d ask candidly whether we should expect the RrSG to join consensus on a (lawful) requirement to provide an email contact, if the RrSG position is that email is not necessary and the RrSG is unwilling to discuss it further.
*Brian J. King* *He/Him/His*
Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group
T +1 443 761 3726
*clarivate.com <http://clarivate.com>*
Accelerating innovation
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:32 PM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays
Hi folks –
On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement.
In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A. Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere.
Thanks—
J.
Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello all, This goes back to the question of what exactly is in scope for this phase 2a, and what problem we’re trying to solve. We already have Recommendation #13 from Phase 1 stating that (among other things) “the Registrar MUST provide an email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact,” so the requirement to provide a contact method, which may be an email address, has already been decided. Specifics related to the web form around things like character limits and CAPTCHA are not in scope for 2a as they are unrelated to our instructions, as James pointed out. Our duty here is not to determine if a relay email is required, or under what circumstances. Instead, we’re here to review the legal guidance and any specific proposals which offer methods to implement that email while addressing the issues raised in that guidance and of course adhering to relevant data protection obligations. Is it feasible for unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address? If so, should that be required when implementing an email address contact relay? That’s what we’re doing here, and we shouldn’t mix that up with questions around if a relay email is itself required or not, which are already determined. -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Tucows swyld@tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Volker Greimann Sent: January 18, 2021 8:21 AM To: King, Brian Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays I think the main issue is not whether it is desirable, but whether it is feasible at all, in a way that _fully safeguards_ all affected parties. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:28 PM King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote: Hi James, I’d like to understand your request a bit better. For many IP purposes, having a reliable email address is necessary to facilitate communication with the RNH, especially since web forms have proven insufficient for many of us. To the IP folks, contactability is an important reason for our work on “the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address” (Temp Spec, emphasis added). I was concerned (or hopefully confused) to hear the RrSG assert that email contact was not necessary for IP purposes – I’d think we could either take the IPC’s word on that, or attempt to understand each other better. If we agree that some form of email address is needed, or that we need to understand each other better, let’s proceed accordingly. If not, I’d ask candidly whether we should expect the RrSG to join consensus on a (lawful) requirement to provide an email contact, if the RrSG position is that email is not necessary and the RrSG is unwilling to discuss it further. Brian J. King He/Him/His Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group T +1 443 761 3726 clarivate.com Accelerating innovation From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:32 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays Hi folks – On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement. In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A. Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere. Thanks— J. Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
James M. Bladel -
King, Brian -
Sarah Wyld -
Volker Greimann