Any of the fields that are redacted but not explicitly contact which I would class as mailing address, telephone and e-mail. Based on the table on page 50/51, that means the Registry Registrant ID, Registrant name, Organization, Tech ID, Tech Name. The two name fields and Organization are in my mind the most important, but I see no reason not to follow the original intent and apply to all redacted fields. If those are implied in "contact information", it should explicitly be stated because it is not obvious. Also note the the term "additional" is vague. I believe it should specifically refer to the redacted or otherwise obscured fields. Alan At 15/02/2019 10:30 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

Alan, can you clarify why you consider that this is not covered under recommendation #6:

"The EPDP Team recommends that, as soon as commercially reasonable, Registrar must provide the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder to provide its Consent to publish additional contact information in the RDS for the sponsoring registrar."

Thanks,

Caitlin, Berry and Marika

On 2/15/19, 08:55, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Temp Spec 2.3 allowed a registrant to consent to publication of redacted fields. In Toronto, we noted that this did not apply to e-mail since it was not technically "redacted". Rec #6 addressed this. But we seem to have lost the ability of a registrant to consnt to publication of the redacted fields!

Is this an error that will be corrected or intentional (I do not recall such a decision).

Alan

_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team