Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Thanks, Hadia, but this appears to change the meaning of what was agreed during yesterday’s meeting (‘expression of need’)? Of course, if everyone is comfortable with this change, we can make it accordingly. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 07:04 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1 Thank you Marika, apologies for editing an old version. Please find below my edits in orange The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see https://www.icann.org/octo [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_octo&d=Dw...>). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the relevance of research to ICANN's mission. Again my edits are because I think that we should avoid referring to data or modes of operation the whole idea is yet to be explored. Hadia From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:44 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Margie Milam; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1 Hadia, all, Please note that per yesterday’s agreement, the recommendation has been updated as follows: The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see https://www.icann.org/octo [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_octo&d=Dw...>). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression for the need of such pseudonymized data by ICANN. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 06:38 To: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1 Hi all Thank you Margie for your edits I would suggest a minor edit to the research purpose to read (my edits are in orange) "The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the need for the research purpose by ICANN org in accordance with the mission of ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer." The reason for my edits is that we don't know yet the kind of data that would be required nor the means of implementation the whole purpose/idea is yet to be explored. Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:03 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1 Hi- Per Marika’s request, here are some language clarifications for your consideration, as well as additional topic submitted on behalf of the BC, and developed in collaboration with the IPC. New Text is in yellow highlight. _________ Rec 1 Purpose 1(b): Subject to the Registry and Registry Terms Conditions and Policies, and ICANN Consensus Policies – please ADD: { and relevant registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements] Purpose 2: Footnote 6 needs to be moved to be linked to Purpose 2, not Rec 2. Research purpose: The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression 426for the need of such data by ICANN Footnote 7/8 should not be a footnote but moved up to the body of the report. These footnotes are substantive recommendations and commitments that should not be buried in a footnote. Rec 7: Replace “ICANN Compliance”with ”ICANN Organization” to be consistent with other recommendations. Delete the quote in Footnote 12 on page 24, since this is inconsistent with Purpose 5. Additional Topics: INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRANT: Page 16- where there is the quote from the EDPB: It should therefore be made clear, as part of the registration process, that the registrant is free to (1) designate the same person as the registrant (or its representative) as the administrative or technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the administrative or technical contact person concerned (e.g. admin@company.com<mailto:admin@company.com>). For the avoidance of doubt, the EDPB recommends explicitly clarifying this within future updates of the Temporary Specification”. We believe it is important to follow the EDPB’s advice and propose including a recommendation regarding informed consent, in light of the legal advice received, as follows: The EPDP recommends that as part of the registration process, the Registrar shall offer the registered name holder the option to (1) designate the same person as the registrant or its representative as the technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the technical contact person, but instead uses a generic or role-based email (e.g.admin@company.com<mailto:admin@company.com>). OPTIONAL TECH CONTACT DISCUSSION: We do not support making the Tech Contact optional at the registrar level or registry level and believe that more discussion is needed. For example, we have not discussed what happens to existing Tech contacts in the legacy registrations. Shouldn’t there be a similar transitional process to what has been developed for the ORGANIZATION field? In any event, this obligation must be requieeed for the registries since they should receive the tech contact data for those registrants who have provided consent. RECOMMENTATION REGARDING CONSENT Page 19 – Line 549 please delete “as soon as commercially reasonable”. Instead, this recommendation should track the dates for implementation under the transition plan that James and the registrars proposed in Toronto. Rec 4: THICK WHOIS: we do not support the deletion of THICK WHOIS as a consensus policy, and believe that this goes beyond the scope of this EPDP. Rec 8: GLOBAL REDACTION vs. OPTIONAL AT THE REGISTRAR--- We do not agree with global application of the REDACTION, and believe that this recommendation goes well beyond the Temp Spec, which at a minimum allows the registrars/registries to CHOOSE a different application, especially because of differing legal regimes. Our policy needs to be flexible enough to account for laws beyond GDRP, such as the possible US legislation related to WHOIS. Similarly, we do not believe that the redaction should apply to legal persons. We recall James suggesting that we could consider an approach similar to the approach taken for the ORGANIZATION Field, and thus we would like to further explore it in Phase 2. Footnote 15 is a recommendation that should be moved into the body of the Final Report & not be buried in a footnote. Also- it needs to exclude registrations with privacy/proxy services and those for which the registrant has provided consent. PAGE 27: REDACTION OF CITY– we don’t agree with the redaction of CITY and are awaiting legal advice from Ruth on the issue. As a result, it is premature to make a recommendation that it be redacted now. This should be a Phase 2 discussion REC 9: Instead of a “via a process that can be determined by each registrar” we should have concrete steps that can be enforced by ICANN. Could the registrars identify some reasonable steps for this process? ADD: After the implementation phase-in period, the ORG FIELD will no longer be REDACTED by either the registry or registrar. We are still working through the remainder of the Final Report, and will follow up this email with additional comments. All the best, Margie
I am not comfortable with the change. We discussed this topic extensively on yesterday's call, and we reached an agreement on different language. We have many other topics to discuss, and I respectfully suggest that we need to move on. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 8:16 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Hadia, but this appears to change the meaning of what was agreed during yesterday’s meeting (‘expression of need’)? Of course, if everyone is comfortable with this change, we can make it accordingly.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
From: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 07:04 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Thank you Marika, apologies for editing an old version. Please find below my edits in orange
The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see [https://www.icann.org/octo [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_octo&d=Dw...)). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the relevance of research to ICANN's mission.
Again my edits are because I think that we should avoid referring to data or modes of operation the whole idea is yet to be explored.
Hadia
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:44 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Margie Milam; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Hadia, all,
Please note that per yesterday’s agreement, the recommendation has been updated as follows:
The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see [https://www.icann.org/octo [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_octo&d=Dw...)). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression for the need of such pseudonymized data by ICANN.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 06:38 To: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Hi all
Thank you Margie for your edits I would suggest a minor edit to the research purpose to read (my edits are in orange)
"The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the need for the research purpose by ICANN org in accordance with the mission of ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer."
The reason for my edits is that we don't know yet the kind of data that would be required nor the means of implementation the whole purpose/idea is yet to be explored.
Hadia
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:03 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Hi-
Per Marika’s request, here are some language clarifications for your consideration, as well as additional topic submitted on behalf of the BC, and developed in collaboration with the IPC. New Text is in yellow highlight. _________
Rec 1
Purpose 1(b): Subject to the Registry and Registry Terms Conditions and Policies, and ICANN Consensus Policies – please ADD: { and relevant registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements]
Purpose 2: Footnote 6 needs to be moved to be linked to Purpose 2, not Rec 2.
Research purpose: The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression 426for the need of such data by ICANN
Footnote 7/8 should not be a footnote but moved up to the body of the report. These footnotes are substantive recommendations and commitments that should not be buried in a footnote.
Rec 7: Replace “ICANN Compliance”with ”ICANN Organization” to be consistent with other recommendations.
Delete the quote in Footnote 12 on page 24, since this is inconsistent with Purpose 5.
Additional Topics:
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRANT:
Page 16- where there is the quote from the EDPB:
It should therefore be made clear, as part of the registration process, that the registrant is free to (1) designate the same person as the registrant (or its representative) as the administrative or technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the administrative or technical contact person concerned (e.g. admin@company.com). For the avoidance of doubt, the EDPB recommends explicitly clarifying this within future updates of the Temporary Specification”.
We believe it is important to follow the EDPB’s advice and propose including a recommendation regarding informed consent, in light of the legal advice received, as follows:
The EPDP recommends that as part of the registration process, the Registrar shall offer the registered name holder the option to (1) designate the same person as the registrant or its representative as the technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the technical contact person, but instead uses a generic or role-based email (e.g.admin@company.com).
OPTIONAL TECH CONTACT DISCUSSION: We do not support making the Tech Contact optional at the registrar level or registry level and believe that more discussion is needed. For example, we have not discussed what happens to existing Tech contacts in the legacy registrations. Shouldn’t there be a similar transitional process to what has been developed for the ORGANIZATION field? In any event, this obligation must be requieeed for the registries since they should receive the tech contact data for those registrants who have provided consent.
RECOMMENTATION REGARDING CONSENT Page 19 – Line 549 please delete “as soon as commercially reasonable”. Instead, this recommendation should track the dates for implementation under the transition plan that James and the registrars proposed in Toronto.
Rec 4: THICK WHOIS: we do not support the deletion of THICK WHOIS as a consensus policy, and believe that this goes beyond the scope of this EPDP.
Rec 8: GLOBAL REDACTION vs. OPTIONAL AT THE REGISTRAR--- We do not agree with global application of the REDACTION, and believe that this recommendation goes well beyond the Temp Spec, which at a minimum allows the registrars/registries to CHOOSE a different application, especially because of differing legal regimes. Our policy needs to be flexible enough to account for laws beyond GDRP, such as the possible US legislation related to WHOIS. Similarly, we do not believe that the redaction should apply to legal persons. We recall James suggesting that we could consider an approach similar to the approach taken for the ORGANIZATION Field, and thus we would like to further explore it in Phase 2.
Footnote 15 is a recommendation that should be moved into the body of the Final Report & not be buried in a footnote. Also- it needs to exclude registrations with privacy/proxy services and those for which the registrant has provided consent.
PAGE 27: REDACTION OF CITY– we don’t agree with the redaction of CITY and are awaiting legal advice from Ruth on the issue. As a result, it is premature to make a recommendation that it be redacted now. This should be a Phase 2 discussion
REC 9: Instead of a “via a process that can be determined by each registrar” we should have concrete steps that can be enforced by ICANN. Could the registrars identify some reasonable steps for this process?
ADD: After the implementation phase-in period, the ORG FIELD will no longer be REDACTED by either the registry or registrar.
We are still working through the remainder of the Final Report, and will follow up this email with additional comments.
All the best,
Margie
As we said, a purpose for data processing should not be speculative. We don't even know what personal information should be accessed in the future and for what activity, how can we have a futuristic purpose. I have also clarified numerous time that ICANN in getting involved with Botnet mitigations did not access personal information itself. It only coordinated the mitigation effort and facilitated the registries and registrars work in overcoming the attacks. I can't support this purpose if it turns into a laundry list of activities that are supposed to be carried out by OCTO "in the future". I thought it could be a compromise, a placeholder for the future discussions and only limited to the true role of OCTO. But if the group wants to keep adding to this purpose then I object to having it. At the time that the necessity occurs for their activities to have access to personal data, then I am sure some measure through policy etc can be taken to facilitate that. We don't have a crystal ball. I am not sure a crystal ball approach is GDPR compliant even. Farzaneh On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:20 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
I am not comfortable with the change. We discussed this topic extensively on yesterday's call, and we reached an agreement on different language. We have many other topics to discuss, and I respectfully suggest that we need to move on.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 8:16 AM, Marika Konings < marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Hadia, but this appears to change the meaning of what was agreed during yesterday’s meeting (‘expression of need’)? Of course, if everyone is comfortable with this change, we can make it accordingly.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*From: *Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> *Date: *Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 07:04 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Margie Milam < margiemilam@fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Thank you Marika, apologies for editing an old version. Please find below my edits in orange
*The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see https://www.icann.org/octo [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_octo&d=Dw...>). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and **the relevance of research to ICANN's mission.*
Again my edits are because I think that we should avoid referring to data or modes of operation the whole idea is yet to be explored.
Hadia
*From:* Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:44 PM *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Margie Milam; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Hadia, all,
Please note that per yesterday’s agreement, the recommendation has been updated as follows:
*The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to carry out its mission (see https://www.icann.org/octo [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_octo&d=Dw...>). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression for the need of such pseudonymized data by ICANN. *
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*From: *Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> *Date: *Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 06:38 *To: *Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Hi all
Thank you Margie for your edits I would suggest a minor edit to the research purpose to read (my edits are in orange)
"The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the need for the research purpose by ICANN org in accordance with the mission of ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer."
The reason for my edits is that we don't know yet the kind of data that would be required nor the means of implementation the whole purpose/idea is yet to be explored.
Hadia
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Margie Milam *Sent:* Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:03 AM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-epdp-team] Comments on Final Report & Additional Topics- Part 1
Hi-
Per Marika’s request, here are some language clarifications for your consideration, as well as additional topic submitted on behalf of the BC, and developed in collaboration with the IPC. New Text is in yellow highlight. * _________*
*Rec 1*
*Purpose 1(b):* Subject to the Registry and Registry Terms Conditions and Policies, and ICANN Consensus Policies – please ADD: { and relevant registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements]
*Purpose 2:* Footnote 6 needs to be moved to be linked to Purpose 2, not Rec 2.
*Research purpose:* The EPDP Team commits to considering in Phase 2 of its work whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate research ADD: [ and threat response] carried out by ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). This consideration should be informed by legal guidance on if/how provisions in the GDPR concerning research apply to ICANN Org and the expression 426for the need of such data by ICANN
*Footnote 7/8* should not be a footnote but moved up to the body of the report. These footnotes are substantive recommendations and commitments that should not be buried in a footnote.
*Rec 7:* Replace “ICANN Compliance”with ”ICANN Organization” to be consistent with other recommendations.
Delete the quote in Footnote 12 on page 24, since this is inconsistent with Purpose 5.
*Additional Topics:*
*INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRANT:*
Page 16- where there is the quote from the EDPB:
*It should therefore be made clear, as part of the registration process, that the registrant is free to (1) designate the same person as the registrant (or its representative) as the administrative or technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the administrative or technical contact person concerned (e.g. admin@company.com <admin@company.com>). For the avoidance of doubt, the EDPB recommends explicitly clarifying this within future updates of the Temporary Specification*”.
We believe it is important to follow the EDPB’s advice and propose including a recommendation regarding informed consent, in light of the legal advice received, as follows:
The EPDP recommends that as part of the registration process, the Registrar shall offer the registered name holder the option to (1) designate the same person as the registrant or its representative as the technical contact; or (2) provide contact information which does not directly identify the technical contact person, but instead uses a generic or role-based email (e.g.admin@company.com).
*OPTIONAL TECH CONTACT DISCUSSION:* We do not support making the Tech Contact optional at the registrar level or registry level and believe that more discussion is needed. For example, we have not discussed what happens to existing Tech contacts in the legacy registrations. Shouldn’t there be a similar transitional process to what has been developed for the ORGANIZATION field? In any event, this obligation must be requieeed for the registries since they should receive the tech contact data for those registrants who have provided consent.
*RECOMMENTATION REGARDING CONSENT* Page 19 – Line 549 please delete “as soon as commercially reasonable”. Instead, this recommendation should track the dates for implementation under the transition plan that James and the registrars proposed in Toronto.
*Rec 4:* THICK WHOIS: we do not support the deletion of THICK WHOIS as a consensus policy, and believe that this goes beyond the scope of this EPDP.
*Rec 8:* GLOBAL REDACTION vs. OPTIONAL AT THE REGISTRAR--- We do not agree with global application of the REDACTION, and believe that this recommendation goes well beyond the Temp Spec, which at a minimum allows the registrars/registries to CHOOSE a different application, especially because of differing legal regimes. Our policy needs to be flexible enough to account for laws beyond GDRP, such as the possible US legislation related to WHOIS. Similarly, we do not believe that the redaction should apply to legal persons. We recall James suggesting that we could consider an approach similar to the approach taken for the ORGANIZATION Field, and thus we would like to further explore it in Phase 2.
*Footnote 15* is a recommendation that should be moved into the body of the Final Report & not be buried in a footnote. Also- it needs to exclude registrations with privacy/proxy services and those for which the registrant has provided consent.
*PAGE 27*: REDACTION OF CITY– we don’t agree with the redaction of CITY and are awaiting legal advice from Ruth on the issue. As a result, it is premature to make a recommendation that it be redacted now. This should be a Phase 2 discussion
*REC 9:* Instead of a “via a process that can be determined by each registrar” we should have concrete steps that can be enforced by ICANN. Could the registrars identify some reasonable steps for this process?
ADD: After the implementation phase-in period, the ORG FIELD will no longer be REDACTED by either the registry or registrar.
We are still working through the remainder of the Final Report, and will follow up this email with additional comments.
All the best,
Margie
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
participants (3)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
farzaneh badii -
Marika Konings