That was supposed to say ‘deleted’ instead of ‘delated’.

Chuck

From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:01 PM
To: 'Metalitz, Steven' <met@msk.com>; 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon@pir.org>; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review

Beth,

In my responses below I failed to respond to your question about whether the first bullets about the registrant belongs under Question 3. Do you think that bullet and the associated sub-bullets should be delated? Isn’t possible that the regulatory entity might need to contact the registrant? Please explain your thinking further.

Chuck

From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com]
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 11:57 AM
To: 'Metalitz, Steven' <met@msk.com>; 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon@pir.org>; 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org' <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review
Importance: High

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.
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.
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.
I think Steve is right about jurisdiction; if no one objects to his edits, they will be included in the next draft.

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.

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) . . .”
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.
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 will wait 2 or 3 hours for responses to this message and them create a new draft for everyone to review.

Chuck

From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com]
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:04 AM
To: 'Beth Bacon' <bbacon@pir.org>; 'Chuck' <consult@cgomes.com>; 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org' <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

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation

T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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@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 | met@msk.com

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com

1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036

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@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@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@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