Legal vs. natural and WHOIS accuracy questions from Phase 1
Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached a Legal Committee question, which touches on both legal vs. natural and WHOIS accuracy questions from Phase 1. The Legal Committee did not unanimously agree to submit this question to outside counsel, as NSCG disagrees with this question in principle and believes it to be out of scope. I am sending this question as an FYI and noting that it will not be sent to Bird & Bird at this time. I am also specifically requesting Rafik, as both the vice-chair and GNSO Council Liaison to this EPDP Team, to seek further guidance from the GNSO Council with respect to the Council’s expectations related to WHOIS accuracy issue in Phase 2. As many of you are likely aware, there is currently an ongoing discussion between ICANN org and the GNSO Council regarding Recommendation 4 and the accompanying footnote from the Phase 1 Final Report, which provides, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.”[1] <#_ftn1> The accompanying footnote reads: The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System. Most recently, ICANN org sent the following correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec19-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council, in reference to a request for clarification on data accuracy and the EPDP Phase 2. I have asked Rafik to seek further guidance from the Council with respect to the scope of data accuracy for Phase 2 and what the EPDP Team is expected to deliberate on. If possible, I am asking the GNSO Council to provide guidance by Friday, 13 March so that the EPDP Team will have time to receive further guidance from Bird & Bird (if applicable). Thank you. Best regards JK ------------------------------ <#_ftnref1>
Hello Janis, Following up on this issue, seeking clarification from you on one point: The document that you attached contains multiple legal questions (rather than just one), with sub-questions -- can you confirm that *none* of these questions are being sent to Bird & Bird at this time? Thanks very much, Tara Whalen On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:48 AM Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find attached a Legal Committee question, which touches on both legal vs. natural and WHOIS accuracy questions from Phase 1. The Legal Committee did not unanimously agree to submit this question to outside counsel, as NSCG disagrees with this question in principle and believes it to be out of scope.
I am sending this question as an FYI and noting that it will not be sent to Bird & Bird at this time. I am also specifically requesting Rafik, as both the vice-chair and GNSO Council Liaison to this EPDP Team, to seek further guidance from the GNSO Council with respect to the Council’s expectations related to WHOIS accuracy issue in Phase 2.
As many of you are likely aware, there is currently an ongoing discussion between ICANN org and the GNSO Council regarding Recommendation 4 and the accompanying footnote from the Phase 1 Final Report, which provides, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.”[1] <#m_-6428898706301371388__ftn1> The accompanying footnote reads: The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS
Accuracy Reporting System.
Most recently, ICANN org sent the following correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec19-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council, in reference to a request for clarification on data accuracy and the EPDP Phase 2. I have asked Rafik to seek further guidance from the Council with respect to the scope of data accuracy for Phase 2 and what the EPDP Team is expected to deliberate on. If possible, I am asking the GNSO Council to provide guidance by Friday, 13 March so that the EPDP Team will have time to receive further guidance from Bird & Bird (if applicable).
Thank you.
Best regards
JK
------------------------------
<#m_-6428898706301371388__ftnref1> _______________________________________________ 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.
Yes, Tara. I can confirm that no questions have been sent to B&B. JK On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:54 AM Tara Whalen <tjwhalen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Janis, Following up on this issue, seeking clarification from you on one point:
The document that you attached contains multiple legal questions (rather than just one), with sub-questions -- can you confirm that *none* of these questions are being sent to Bird & Bird at this time?
Thanks very much, Tara Whalen
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:48 AM Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find attached a Legal Committee question, which touches on both legal vs. natural and WHOIS accuracy questions from Phase 1. The Legal Committee did not unanimously agree to submit this question to outside counsel, as NSCG disagrees with this question in principle and believes it to be out of scope.
I am sending this question as an FYI and noting that it will not be sent to Bird & Bird at this time. I am also specifically requesting Rafik, as both the vice-chair and GNSO Council Liaison to this EPDP Team, to seek further guidance from the GNSO Council with respect to the Council’s expectations related to WHOIS accuracy issue in Phase 2.
As many of you are likely aware, there is currently an ongoing discussion between ICANN org and the GNSO Council regarding Recommendation 4 and the accompanying footnote from the Phase 1 Final Report, which provides, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.”[1] <#m_6362185562714607092_m_-6428898706301371388__ftn1> The accompanying footnote reads: The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS
Accuracy Reporting System.
Most recently, ICANN org sent the following correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec19-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council, in reference to a request for clarification on data accuracy and the EPDP Phase 2. I have asked Rafik to seek further guidance from the Council with respect to the scope of data accuracy for Phase 2 and what the EPDP Team is expected to deliberate on. If possible, I am asking the GNSO Council to provide guidance by Friday, 13 March so that the EPDP Team will have time to receive further guidance from Bird & Bird (if applicable).
Thank you.
Best regards
JK
------------------------------
<#m_6362185562714607092_m_-6428898706301371388__ftnref1> _______________________________________________ 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 (2)
-
Janis Karklins -
Tara Whalen