March 2018 - Gnso-rds-pdp-5

DT5 Presentations to the WG
by consult＠cgomes.com March 13, 2018

March 13, 2018

Please note that the DT5 presentations are scheduled to occur in our WG meeting on Wednesday afternoon from 3:15 to 6:30 pm AST. Regulatory Enforcement is scheduled to be presented by Farell first followed by ICANN Contractual Enforcement by Beth. Please let me know if there are any issues with this plan I also want to let you know the following: Time permitting, we plan start deliberation on ICANN Contractual Enforcement after all the presentations are completed with accompanying discussion. Chuck

5 4

Need presenters for both deliverables
by Chuck March 8, 2018

March 8, 2018

Who will be in-person in our WG meeting Saturday morning? For those who will be there in-person, please let me now if you are willing to present one of our deliverables: ICANN Contractual Compliance or Regulatory. I already sent the final for Compliance and will be sending the one for Regulatory shortly. Chuck

4 8

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review
by Chuck March 8, 2018

March 8, 2018

Thanks for the edits Steve. I saved the redline version from Steve as version 2 of our deliverable. Does anyone have any more suggested edits? If so, please let us know by mid-day on Monday. Otherwise, I will assume that this is our final version for ICANN Contractual Compliance. Who from this DT is going to be in Puerto Rico? It would be great if one of you could present our deliverable to the WG on Saturday morning. It could also be presented remotely. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:04 AM To: 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon(a)pir.org>; 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com>; 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org' <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review And here are a few edits re the ICANN contractual compliance piece, mainly to indicate that (1) compliance issues other than RDS compliance might apply and (2) ICANN compliance may need to contact registrants as part of a compliance investigation. Perhaps we should run this document by ICANN compliance to get their perspective.. Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:46 AM To: 'Beth Bacon'; Chuck; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Thanks for getting the ball rolling Beth. See my edits/comments in attached. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Beth Bacon Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:22 AM To: Chuck; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Hello Team, Please see my edits and comments in the attached. Please feel free to argue with me about my comments and questions. I've missed a few of the calls this month so my questions may be based on incorrect assumptions. I don't have any edits to the compliance document. Looking forward to seeing you in PR. Best, Beth From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:00 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Importance: High I have only heard from one team member so far and she plans to respond today. I sure hope the rest of you can respond today as well. I understand how much is going on including ICANN's posting of the latest info on the GDPR memo, but please try to spend 30 minutes or so today and provide your initial input on these two documents so that we can have an email discussion about them over the weekend and on Monday. Chuck From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:01 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Importance: High It would be very helpful if each of you could review and provide any first thoughts you have on the following two drafts TODAY. Note that the first one is less than two pages and the second is only about half a page. Chuck

7 26

Final Version of DT5 Deliverable for the Proposed Purpose of ICANN Contractual Compliance
by Chuck March 7, 2018

March 7, 2018

Here is the Final Version of DT5 Deliverable for the Proposed Purpose of ICANN Contractual Compliance. It will also be posted on the WG wiki. The leadership team requests that everyone review this before our WG session Saturday morning in Puerto Rico. In doing so, please understand that the purpose of this exercise is to improve everyone's understanding about the proposed purpose with the hope of making our future deliberation on whether it is a legitimate reason for doing any processing of any RDS data elements. Do not look at what is said in the DT's answers as decisions that have been made or will be made in our meeting on Saturday. It is merely input to facilitate our future deliberations, so it is not essential that we have a certain level of consensus now. Please come prepared to ask any questions you have or suggestions as to anything that the DT may have missed. For those of you traveling to San Juan, I wish you safe travel. For others, I hope you will be able to join our meeting remotely. Chuck

1 0

DT5 Deliverable for ICANN Contractual Compliance
by Chuck March 7, 2018

March 7, 2018

Here is proposed final version of our deliverable for the ICANN Contractual Compliance Purpose. If anyone objects to anything in this version, please communicate what you object to and why not later than 1700 UTC (12 on EST, 9 am PST) tomorrow (Wednesday, March 7). If no objections are communicated, I will send it to the WG list. If any objections are communicated, I will note those in the final version and send that version to the WG list. Thanks to everyone for the thought you put into this. We still need to identify someone to present our final version in the WG meeting on Saturday morning; in that session other DT5 members may add their comments and WG members and guests will be given an opportunity to discuss it. Keeping in mind that this exercise is intended to help us continue our deliberation on whether the Regulatory Purpose is a legitimate purpose for processing any RDS data, the answers we give, and any objections will hopefully contribute to that deliberation when we get to it. Note that I did not include the comments from Beth and Kathy because I think they were mostly for understanding of the task. Please feel free to bring them up in F2F meeting if you think they will help. Chuck

4 9

DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose
by Chuck March 7, 2018

March 7, 2018

I want to remind all DT5 members that we broke our assignment into two deliverables: Regulatory Purpose and ICANN Compliance Purpose. There as been quite a lot of discussion about the Compliance one but not much recently about the Regulatory one. The latest redline version is attached with comments from Steve, Beth and me. Please look at the edits and comments and answer the following questions to help us finalize this today if possible: Question 1 * Do you support the edits made by Steve? If not, please explain why and provide alternative wording if applicable. * Note: I am considering leaving my comment in our final deliverable? Does anyone think we should not leave it or have another suggestion? Question 3 * If I understand correctly, Beth thinks we should delete the bullet and sub-bullets about registrants. Beth - please let me know if I misunderstand your comment and let us know what we should replace it with. The other alternative would be to delete registrant from the answer to Q1. * Is anyone any favor of deleting registrant from the answer to Q1? * Beth also inserted a comment regarding the last 4 sub-bullets under registries. Would it suffice to just add her comment in our final deliverable and leave the sub-bullets as is? I hope all of you will respond today because we are quickly running out of time. Chuck

5 6

DT5 Deliverable for the Regulatory Purpose version 4
by Chuck March 7, 2018

March 7, 2018

If anyone objects to anything in this version, please communicate what you object to and why not later than 1700 UTC (12 on EST, 9 am PST) tomorrow (Wednesday, March 7). If no objections are communicated, leave the comments I inserted and send this version as our final deliverable to the WG list. If any objections are communicated, I will note those in the final version and send that version to the WG list. Thanks to everyone for the thought you put into this. We still need to identify someone to present our final version in the WG meeting on Saturday morning; in that session other DT6 members may add their comments and WG members and guests will be given an opportunity to discuss it. Keeping in mind that this exercise is intended to help us continue our deliberation on whether the Regulatory Purpose is a legitimate purpose for processing any RDS data, the answers we give and any objections will hopefully contribute to that deliberation when we get to it. Note that I did not include many of Kathy's comments because they are more appropriate for our later deliberation on this purpose than they are for this exercise. This does not at imply that they are not important; they are just not directly relevant to this exercise and will be more appropriately discuss when we deliberate directly on the Regulatory Purpose. Chuck

2 2

DT5 ICANN Contractual Compliance Deliverable
by Chuck March 5, 2018

March 5, 2018

I will plan on sending Maguy our deliverable on ICANN Contractual Compliance once we finish it and let her know that we would appreciate it if she could provide any input she or her team members have on Saturday morning in the WG session. Also, I assume that all of you saw Kathy's input. I think she meant to attach some proposed edits. Please respond to any suggestions she makes as soon as possible today. Chuck From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 12:07 PM To: 'Theo Geurts' <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl>; 'Metalitz, Steven' <met(a)msk.com>; 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon(a)pir.org>; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review We can certainly get Compliance's perspective but we do not have time to do that before our deliverable is due next week. I note that Maguy Serad, ICANN's VP of Compliance, is planning on attending our WG meeting on Saturday morning in Puerto Rico; that would be an excellent time to get Compliance's perspective. Once we finish our deliverable, I will send it to her and alert her that we would like her input. Chuck From: Theo Geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:17 AM To: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> >; 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon(a)pir.org <mailto:bbacon@pir.org> >; 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org' <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Getting the perspective from compliance would indeed be helpful. Thanks, Theo On 2-3-2018 18:04, Metalitz, Steven wrote: And here are a few edits re the ICANN contractual compliance piece, mainly to indicate that (1) compliance issues other than RDS compliance might apply and (2) ICANN compliance may need to contact registrants as part of a compliance investigation. Perhaps we should run this document by ICANN compliance to get their perspective.. Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:46 AM To: 'Beth Bacon'; Chuck; <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Thanks for getting the ball rolling Beth. See my edits/comments in attached. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [ <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Beth Bacon Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:22 AM To: Chuck; <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Hello Team, Please see my edits and comments in the attached. Please feel free to argue with me about my comments and questions. I've missed a few of the calls this month so my questions may be based on incorrect assumptions. I don't have any edits to the compliance document. Looking forward to seeing you in PR. Best, Beth From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:00 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Importance: High I have only heard from one team member so far and she plans to respond today. I sure hope the rest of you can respond today as well. I understand how much is going on including ICANN's posting of the latest info on the GDPR memo, but please try to spend 30 minutes or so today and provide your initial input on these two documents so that we can have an email discussion about them over the weekend and on Monday. Chuck From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:01 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Importance: High It would be very helpful if each of you could review and provide any first thoughts you have on the following two drafts TODAY. Note that the first one is less than two pages and the second is only about half a page. Chuck _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-5 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-5

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft forDT Review
by Kris Seeburn March 3, 2018

March 3, 2018

Chuck the document looks good with the three points in there…..however, just a note compliance can only be reached when you audited against set rules. Compliance is going to be a large chunk of ICANN. I am also tempted to say despite ICANN’s fiscal or financial issues. If a registrar or registry to not comply they should be put on a probation time and within that time if they do not comply there escrow money is taken up by ICANN. An idea to ponder on because it becomes too easy. This is not policing but acting hard so as not to get more of ICANN in trouble because i can imagine the answers from those not complying. Kris > On Mar 3, 2018, at 00:13, Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com> wrote: > > <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com>) Add cleanup rule <https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Fkey…> | More info <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=37163560904…> > Thanks for the edits Steve. > > I saved the redline version from Steve as version 2 of our deliverable. Does anyone have any more suggested edits? If so, please let us know by mid-day on Monday. Otherwise, I will assume that this is our final version for ICANN Contractual Compliance. > > Who from this DT is going to be in Puerto Rico? It would be great if one of you could present our deliverable to the WG on Saturday morning. It could also be presented remotely. > > Chuck > > From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>] > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:04 AM > To: 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon(a)pir.org <mailto:bbacon@pir.org>>; 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>; 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org>' <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org>> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review > > And here are a few edits re the ICANN contractual compliance piece, mainly to indicate that (1) compliance issues other than RDS compliance might apply and (2) ICANN compliance may need to contact registrants as part of a compliance investigation. Perhaps we should run this document by ICANN compliance to get their perspective…. > > Steve > > > > <image001.gif> > Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation > T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> > Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/> > 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 > > THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. > > From: Metalitz, Steven > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:46 AM > To: 'Beth Bacon'; Chuck; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review > > Thanks for getting the ball rolling Beth. See my edits/comments in attached. > > > > <image001.gif> > Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation > T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> > Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/> > 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 > > THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. > > From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Beth Bacon > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:22 AM > To: Chuck; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review > > Hello Team, > Please see my edits and comments in the attached. Please feel free to argue with me about my comments and questions. I’ve missed a few of the calls this month so my questions may be based on incorrect assumptions. I don’t have any edits to the compliance document. > > Looking forward to seeing you in PR. > Best, > Beth > > From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Chuck > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:00 AM > To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review > Importance: High > > I have only heard from one team member so far and she plans to respond today. I sure hope the rest of you can respond today as well. I understand how much is going on including ICANN’s posting of the latest info on the GDPR memo, but please try to spend 30 minutes or so today and provide your initial input on these two documents so that we can have an email discussion about them over the weekend and on Monday. > > Chuck > > From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Chuck > Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:01 AM > To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review > Importance: High > > It would be very helpful if each of you could review and provide any first thoughts you have on the following two drafts TODAY. Note that the first one is less than two pages and the second is only about half a page. > > Chuck > <Drafting Team Output from DT5 re the ICANN Contractual Enforcement Purpose - v2.docx>_______________________________________________ > Gnso-rds-pdp-5 mailing list > Gnso-rds-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-5> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"

2 3

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - FirstDraft for DT Review
by Kris Seeburn March 3, 2018

March 3, 2018

response and comment in line: > On Mar 2, 2018, at 23:57, Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com> wrote: > > <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (consult(a)cgomes.com) Add cleanup rule <https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Fkey…> | More info <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=37163575794…> > Thanks for all the responses. Beth asked several questions in her redline version that I would like to answer in addition to the responses that Steve gave. And I also respond to Steve’s suggested edits. > > Question 1 > Note that we shouldn’t edit the question because all DTs are responding to the same question. It is certainly possible that the questions could have been worded better but we should leave them as is for now. No issues and makes sense we don’t have much time to play around now. So i’d leave it. > Beth first asked, “Does this refer to the public info set?” Steve answered correctly; it does not. The question refers to any data elements that would be collected and/or accessed for the proposed Regulatory Purpose whether they are in the Minimum Public Data Set or not.Agreed with steve. And also ensure the word processed does not get in it. > She also said, “I think we could say that a registrant needs to be contactable but not necessarily publicly identifiable.” That is correct except the word ‘publicly’ should be deleted as Steve said in his response. There are times when simply identifying the contact would be all that is needed. There are other times when communication with the contact might be necessary. Am in line with steve on this and it matches the GDPR requirements and all other countries who are adoting fast track like UK which took GDPR made some little changes under the ICO. > I think Steve is right about jurisdiction; if no one objects to his edits, they will be included in the next draft. To limit the issues that can come up ICANN can literally push forward a new RAA which also lays responsibility on the third parties. > > Question 2 > Steve responded to Beth’s concern about ‘entity’s legal jurisdiction’. Does everyone including Beth agree with Steve’s response: “Wouldn’t knowing the registrant’s jurisdiction be relevant to the regulator regardless of the jurisdiction of the registrar?” If so, I will leave the wording as is, although additional edits are still welcome. Well i feel it is important to know but the fact that these could be EU citizens or companies does not change. But different jurisdictions must be put forward. Example can be questions like one may be an EU citizen but also a double citizenship which one prevails? I’ve had no proper answer in Brussels on it but the EU takes priority. Th situation is more troublesome because many EU companies or citizen have websites elsewhere in the world so the registrar/registries should be very warry about those and ensure that their database is audited to ensure that EU citizens and orgs are identified and be sure that if a breach does happen the EU data protection commissioner is averted within the 72 hours. That was put in place in case something happens on a friday and the only time to discuss is the monday. > > Question 3 > Beth asked, “Is this the requesting entity or the registrant?” Again Steve answered correctly: “. . . it is those listed in in 1(a)(b) and (c) . . .” Perfectly right. > Does anyone disagree with Beth’s suggestion to change ‘would be expected’ to ‘could’ in all three bullets? Note that Steve agreed. If we have consensus on that, I think it would be good to include some version of their comments in our final deliverable. Let us know if you have thoughts on that.Would could be interpreted as too hard so the word “could” makes sense but as they become hit they would know that they will have to do what is expected. > In the last main bullet for registries, Beth says, “Rys are able to set their own internal policies wrt how they respond to LEA, or other regulatory requests as appropriate to how the request is made and jurisdictional requirement.” I think her statement is correct, but I am not sure what to do with the last four sub-bullets. Depending on registries individual policies for dealing with LEAs, would the four possible actions apply in some cases? Would it help to change the third bullet to something like this: “Domain name registries could do any or all the following depending on their own internal policies regarding how they respond to LEAs or other regulatory requests:” Or would it be better to just add a comment similar to Beth’s in our final deliverable? Ideas are welcome. I think put beth’s comment and also suggest that ideas are welcomed to close on this one. > Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"

2 2