- Gnso-rds-pdp-5 - lists.icann.org

DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review
by Chuck March 3, 2018

March 3, 2018

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

5 12

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft forDT Review
by Kris Seeburn March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

Hi chuck, will have a look… but i can also confirm from EU GDPR Commissioner that the right to delete or be deleted is only under certain strict conditions and takes a long path to get to it. I looked at the interim proposal is not that bad. I will now have a look at the two docs over the week end. And expect some remarks. Kris > On Mar 2, 2018, at 20:00, 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=37159774291…> > 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 Regulatory Purpose - 1st draft.docx><Drafting Team Output from DT5 re the ICANN Contractual Enforcement Purpose - 1st draft.docx><Untitled attachment 00422.txt>_______________________________________________ > 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"

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review
by Chuck Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

My apologies but I have been informed that this message went to DT6 instead of DT5 so I am resending it to DT5. I would appreciate it if the members of DT5 would confirm receipt: Beth Bacon, Theo Geurts, Steve Metalitz, Kris Seeburn, Farell Folly and Bastiaan Goslings. Lisa - the two email addresses are identical except for capitalization. I don't understand what went wrong. Chuck From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 4:13 PM To: 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org' <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org> Subject: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Importance: High Drafting Team 5, As those who were on today's call heard, we have decided to take a week to prep for ICANN61 by working on a specific assignment in drafting team mode. Our team's assignment is to reexamine our past output on the Regulatory Action and ICANN Contractual Compliance purposes. You will recall that we separated our previous deliverable into two parts. You find those deliverables at: https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/Phase+1+Documents (See the 1st & 2nd links for DT5) to answer the following questions more explicitly and conceptually: 1. Who associated with the domain name registration needs to be identified and/or contacted for each purpose? 2. What is the objective achieved by identifying and/or contacting each of those entities? 3. What might be expected of that entity with regard to the domain name? To prep for ICANN61, it is imperative that we discuss these questions and produce output over the next week - ideally by 5 March but no later than 7 March. We know this is a tall order, given a short timeframe. However, the leadership believes that this will help us use our F2F time at ICANN61 more effectively, which I hope we all agree would be a terrific idea. To give us a head start, attached please find a first draft at answers, prepared by me from our past output. To learn more about this assignment, please read these instructions: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%2 0Assignment%2026%20Feb.pdf> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%20 Assignment%2026%20Feb.pdf If you were unable to attend today's WG call, please catch up by reading or listening to the call recording/notes/transcript: <https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B> https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B To get started, please ask any questions you may have about this assignment within the next 24 hours. If you have any suggested edits or additions or deletions to the attached first draft, even better! I encourage you to share them in reply to this message, copying the DT mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> . Thanks for doing what you can to help this drafting team come through on this new assignment. Chuck

6 6

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft forDT Review
by Kris Seeburn Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

confirmed receipt > On Feb 28, 2018, at 18:21, Beth Bacon <bbacon(a)pir.org> wrote: > > <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> You chose to allow Beth Bacon (bbacon(a)pir.org <mailto:bbacon@pir.org>) even though this message failed authentication > Click to disallow <https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc_serial=37099974384&tc_rand=1816970790&utm_sou…> > This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (bbacon(a)pir.org <mailto:bbacon@pir.org>) 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=37099974409…> > Hi Chuck, > I received both messages. > Thanks! > 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: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:16 AM > To: 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] DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review > > My apologies but I have been informed that this message went to DT6 instead of DT5 so I am resending it to DT5. I would appreciate it if the members of DT5 would confirm receipt: Beth Bacon, Theo Geurts, Steve Metalitz, Kris Seeburn, Farell Folly and Bastiaan Goslings. > > Lisa – the two email addresses are identical except for capitalization. I don’t understand what went wrong. > > Chuck > > From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com>] > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 4:13 PM > To: '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: DT5 Answers to Questions – First Draft for DT Review > Importance: High > > Drafting Team 5, > > As those who were on today’s call heard, we have decided to take a week to prep for ICANN61 by working on a specific assignment in drafting team mode. > > Our team’s assignment is to reexamine our past output on the Regulatory Action and ICANN Contractual Compliance purposes. You will recall that we separated our previous deliverable into two parts. You find those deliverables at: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/Phase+1+Documents <https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/Phase+1+Documents> (See the 1st & 2nd links for DT5) > to answer the following questions more explicitly and conceptually: > > Who associated with the domain name registration needs to be identified and/or contacted for each purpose? > What is the objective achieved by identifying and/or contacting each of those entities? > What might be expected of that entity with regard to the domain name? > > To prep for ICANN61, it is imperative that we discuss these questions and produce output over the next week – ideally by 5 March but no later than 7 March. > > We know this is a tall order, given a short timeframe. However, the leadership believes that this will help us use our F2F time at ICANN61 more effectively, which I hope we all agree would be a terrific idea. > > To give us a head start, attached please find a first draft at answers, prepared by me from our past output. > > To learn more about this assignment, please read these instructions: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%2… <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%2…> > > If you were unable to attend today’s WG call, please catch up by reading or listening to the call recording/notes/transcript: > https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B <https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B> > > To get started, please ask any questions you may have about this assignment within the next 24 hours. > > If you have any suggested edits or additions or deletions to the attached first draft, even better! I encourage you to share them in reply to this message, copying the DT mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> . > > Thanks for doing what you can to help this drafting team come through on this new assignment. > > 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 <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"

1 0

DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review
by Chuck Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

Drafting Team 5, As those who were on today's call heard, we have decided to take a week to prep for ICANN61 by working on a specific assignment in drafting team mode. Our team's assignment is to reexamine our past output on the Regulatory Action and ICANN Contractual Compliance purposes. You will recall that we separated our previous deliverable into two parts. You find those deliverables at: https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/Phase+1+Documents (See the 1st & 2nd links for DT5) to answer the following questions more explicitly and conceptually: 1. Who associated with the domain name registration needs to be identified and/or contacted for each purpose? 2. What is the objective achieved by identifying and/or contacting each of those entities? 3. What might be expected of that entity with regard to the domain name? To prep for ICANN61, it is imperative that we discuss these questions and produce output over the next week - ideally by 5 March but no later than 7 March. We know this is a tall order, given a short timeframe. However, the leadership believes that this will help us use our F2F time at ICANN61 more effectively, which I hope we all agree would be a terrific idea. To give us a head start, attached please find a first draft at answers, prepared by me from our past output. To learn more about this assignment, please read these instructions: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%2 0Assignment%2026%20Feb.pdf> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%20 Assignment%2026%20Feb.pdf If you were unable to attend today's WG call, please catch up by reading or listening to the call recording/notes/transcript: <https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B> https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B To get started, please ask any questions you may have about this assignment within the next 24 hours. If you have any suggested edits or additions or deletions to the attached first draft, even better! I encourage you to share them in reply to this message, copying the DT mailing list <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org . Thanks for doing what you can to help this drafting team come through on this new assignment. Chuck

2 1

DT5 Update
by consult＠cgomes.com Dec. 23, 2017

Dec. 23, 2017

Kris, Can you give a 2 or 3 minute update in the WG meeting today of what DT6 has done since Saturday? Chuck

6 33

Final Review of DT5 Deliverables
by Chuck Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Here is a clean version of our final deliverables for the Regulatory and Contractual Enforcement Purposes/Use Cases. I plan to submit them with the following transmittal message: "Here are the final deliverables for Drafting Team 5 for the Regulatory and Contractual Enforcements Purposes/Use Cases. DT6 will provide overviews of these in the 14 November WG meeting. In addition, with concurrence from DT6, DT5 suggests that the WG may want to consider combining the Regulatory Purpose/Use Case with Legal Actions one because they largely overlap. Note that the 'Purpose Name' of 'Contractual Enforcement' was changed to 'ICANN Contractual Enforcement' because DT5 narrowed the focus with the understanding that contractual enforcement actions by other parties are covered in the Regulatory and Legal Actions Purposes/Use Cases." Note that I plan to submit the final versions in about 5 hours (12 pm PST) so this is the last opportunity for any additional input. If I do not receive any more feedback indicating otherwise, I will submit it as is. Thanks for the great teamwork. Chuck

2 1

FW: Meeting Notes and New versions for team review
by Chuck Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Remember that comments and any additional edits are needed by the end of the day today. If none are received, I will assume that everyone is okay with the latest versions; if that is an inaccurate assumption and anyone needs a little more time, please let me know today, realizing that I need to finalize the documents and deliver them early Wednesday afternoon PST. As said in the meeting notes, for the 14 November WG meeting, Beth volunteered to present our final output for the Regulatory Case and Steve for the ICANN Contractual Compliance. It would be good idea to have a backup presenter for each of these, so please let me know by noon PST tomorrow if you would be willing to serve as backup for either or both of these noting that I will likely not be calls on the 14th or 21st. In follow-up to Steve's suggestion that some of the Contractual Enforcement use cases be moved to the Legal Actions team, we found that most of them were already included but he did identify one that was not so he sent an edit in the DT6 deliverable that would cover it. I have sent that suggested edit to DT6 for their consideration. Chuck From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:14 PM To: 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org' <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org> Subject: Meeting Notes and New versions for team review Importance: High Please find the following attachments: 1. DT5 6 Nov 17 meeting notes 2. Revised version of Regulatory Purpose doc with redline changes 3. Revised version of Contractual Enforcement doc with redline changes. All: Please review and provide comments on 2 & 3 not later than end of day tomorrow, Tuesday. Chuck

2 1

FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: DT5 Update
by Chuck Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Steve, Please take note of Paul's comment below. He believes that the uses cases you cite are already sufficiently covered in the Legal Actions document. I attached it so you can see whether you agree. Please let me know what you think and I will pass your thoughts on to the DT5 list. Chuck From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul@law.es] Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 4:35 AM To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Importance: High I think these are already sufficiently incorporated in what we have for WG6. Paul From: <gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 11:17 PM To: <gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> > Cc: <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update DT6 members, Please note that DT5 suggests that the following use cases be included in the DT6 (Legal Actions) deliverable instead of the Contractual Enforcement deliverable. Are there any objections to me adding them? Note that the Contractual Enforcement deliverable has been changed to ICANN Contractual Enforcement. Please let me know if you have any concerns not later than end of day tomorrow (Tuesday). Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 11:38 AM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck, per discussion just now in DT 5, here are the use cases we are EXCLUDING from the contractual compliance paper (now to be re-named ICANN Contractual Compliance), and that should be picked up as use cases in the Legal Actions paper: use cases generated either by the EWG, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20% 20> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work, (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries %20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600 0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2); and also the following developed during our deliberations: Using registration data to seek to ascertain the identity and location of the operator (or domain name registrant responsible for) a website on which A's intellectual property rights are being exercised. For example, this could involve use of A's trademark in logos displayed on the site; offers for sale of merchandise bearing A's trademark; making available for download or streaming movies or sound recordings for which A holds the copyright; etc. This is a necessary first step to determining whether the operator (or registrant) is a licensee with respect to the intellectual property in question, and if so, whether the use of the intellectual property exceeds the scope of the license (e.g., because of territorial restrictions in the license). Alternatively, if A determines that the operator/registrant is not a licensee, this is a necessary first step in seeking contractual enforcement of terms of service by the registrar/registry, and/or potentially ICANN contractual enforcement of registrar/registry obligations to investigate and take appropriate action. 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: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:18 AM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Kris Seeburn' Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Thanks for the very helpful feedback Steve. My intent was not to eliminate any use cases but rather to differentiate between Regulatory action and Contractual Enforcement. I don't think that third parties enforce the agreements, but they can and are a source that assists ICANN Contractual Compliance so maybe we need to word it in a way that includes that. As I said in a different email a few days ago, the DT5 team (Regulatory or Contractual Enforcement) suggested that the Regulatory & Legal Actions purposes could be combined into one. How do DT5 team members feel about that? Note that I put that on the agenda for our call tomorrow. I am happy to see that my edits generated discussion. In the end the team needs to decide what to do, not me. Steve - if you want to revise the language to deal with any of these issues, I think that would be very helpful before our call tomorrow. And please do not feel obliged to use my edits. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 2:33 PM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck's suggested change re contractual enforcement would eliminate consideration of a number of use cases generated either by the EWG, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20% 20> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work, (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries %20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600 0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2). Our earlier draft identified five examples of entities using RDS for contractual enforcement purposes: "These entities include governmental tax authorities, UDRP providers, the ICANN organization, intellectual property owners, and merchant account monitoring solution providers, among others." Chuck's proposed change would move the first of these to the regulatory enforcement category (I support that), but would eliminate the second, fourth and fifth examples. It would recognize the contractual enforcement use only when ICANN was a party to the contract (the third example). Chuck, if your point is that these uses fit better under "legal actions" than under "contractual enforcement," then I would be OK with that so long as they are explicitly addressed under "legal actions." I think they fit better under "contract enforcement" because they in fact involve enforcement of contracts; but if the investigation supported by RDS data indicates a breach of contract, then the result may be a "legal action," i.e., a lawsuit. I would be quite concerned however if these important uses were not captured either in "contract enforcement" nor in "legal actions." Maybe Chuck or Lisa could advise us whether that is or is not the case. Steve Metalitz 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: Chuck [ <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:39 AM To: 'Kris Seeburn' Cc: Metalitz, Steven; <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> lisa(a)corecom.com; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Importance: High I arrived home last night and am trying to catch up. Can someone please send me the latest Word versions and the links to the Google Docs for both deliverables? Also, regarding the definitions, I have been thinking about them and suspect that some WG members will have problem with the word 'collected' so I suggest that we consider using the word 'used' instead. And for Contractual Enforcement I question whether we should refer to Private Party Contracts because ICANN Compliance does not have any enforcement ability with Private Party Contracts so I edited that. They would then read as follows: Contractual Enforcement Information used to enable ICANN Compliance to monitor and enforce contracted parties' agreements with ICANN, as well as resolving issues of compliance arising from issues raised by private parties. Regulatory Information used to enable contact between the registrant and/or their designated point of contact and regulatory entities to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Please feel free to comment on these suggested edits before our call on Monday. Finally, here is a listing from the Wednesday meeting that summarizes our tasks: o Summarize each purpose in one sentence: "Information collected to enable contact between the registrant and <who> <to accomplish what>" o Think in terms of explaining to the data subject why data is being collected for this purpose - keep it concise and simple. o Are the tasks/users identified by your team so diverse and distinct that they may be more than one purpose? If so, split them up and describe each purpose separately. o Which purposes covered by other teams are closely related to or overlap the purpose(s) covered by your team? o Is there any data collected specifically for the stated purpose? Or does that purpose use only data collected for other purposes? If anyone has thoughts about any of these items, please share them with the team; we will discuss them on our call. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:37 PM To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Cc: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> >; lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck looked up at your edits and made a few balancing facts. I am now forwarding the updated latest document that we have worked on. We will also be finding a way to work with the team who have worked on "Legal" and i think we may need at some point work with the "investigation" team which in reality also matches with both the enforcement and regulatory. Just some suggestions. They will be good additions to our work. In fact i feel there are areas that overlap which may be the connection points to the whole of each group. But that would be a later stage approach. I think we need to update and push it to the google docs now so that everyone sees the same versioning as we move. Suggestions: Use cases as Appendix to the documents. Anything else to grow the document and understanding can be laid out as an appendix to each document. Another area that we may add at a later stage is "new gtld auction proceeds" they may be within contractual enforcement and some other groups. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-6 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-6

3 4

Meeting Notes and New versions for team review
by Chuck Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Please find the following attachments: 1. DT5 6 Nov 17 meeting notes 2. Revised version of Regulatory Purpose doc with redline changes 3. Revised version of Contractual Enforcement doc with redline changes. All: Please review and provide comments on 2 & 3 not later than end of day tomorrow, Tuesday. Chuck

1 0