Thanks Kathy and Beth. I inserted comments in response to the edits and questions from Kathy and Beth in the attached file. I think most of the edits are not applicable to the DT task as I tried to explain in my comments. Steve - I would appreciate it if you would answer Kathy's questions about why ICANN Compliance would need to contact the registrant. It seems to me that the decision we need to make is whether or not the registrant may need to be contacted by ICANN Compliance in some instances and to describe what the objective would be. Chuck From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 11:58 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Fwd: Re: FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Hi Chuck, Beth and All, Attached is Chuck's document, as edited by me, and then by Beth. People seemed to be missing it, so let me recirculate. I have recommended edits to the answers to all three questions. As Chuck confirmed below, this "Contractual Compliance" discussion is about the Registries and Registrars, not the Customer (Registrant). The Registries' and Registrars' contact data is known in many places and many ways to ICANN through signed agreements and other contact lists. The Registrant data -- the focus of our work in this RDS WG, right? -- does not appear to be implicated in this discussion at all. Best, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] FW: DT5 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:20:37 +0000 From: Beth Bacon <mailto:bbacon@pir.org> <bbacon@pir.org> To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> Hello all, I made a few small edits to what Kathy contributed, but I do think that the bulk of the comments are more suited to broader RDS WG conversations rather than the narrow focus of DT5. Thanks, Beth From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:40 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-5@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 Kathy, Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 7:31 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@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 Hi Chuck and All, Would it be possible to use a Google Doc? I think I used the most recent version of the DT5 document. [Chuck Gomes] Our deliverable is due not later than Wednesday so I don't think that we have time to switch now. Also, this is a very short document so I don't understand the problem. I have to say that this document is very difficult for me to understand. Perhaps because the terms are ambiguous. "Contracted party" in ICANN generally means a registry and registrar. Is that how you are using it here? [Chuck Gomes] For now yes, but in the future, there could be other contracted parties such as privacy/proxy providers depending on what policies are approved and implemented. Further, throughout the world, contractual compliance documents (often third party documents to the customer and involving how a customer's data is processed by vendors, for example) are being modified to ensure that the fundamental protections and rights provided by data protection laws to the customers (registrants, in our case) are protected fully and consistent with the purpose of that collection and processing. [Chuck Gomes] How does this relate to the DT5 task? Do you have a specific suggestion for our answers to the three questions? Here, we seem to be making the contractual compliance obligations of third parties to the customer/registrant subservient to other agreements. I think we may have it backwards, but I am, of course new to the group. (I have however, studied and written about the EU-US Privacy Shield -- happy to share the links). [Chuck Gomes] All we are doing here is examining the contractual compliance issue to see if there is common understanding of it with the hope that the WG will then be better able to deliberate on whether it is a legitimate purpose for which some sort of processing is appropriate. I think you are reading way to much into what we are doing. Our focus is not on the contractual compliance obligations of third parties. Our focus for this deliverable is only on ICANN's RDS needs for enforcing its contracts with domain name registrars and registries. Best regards, Kathy (with edited version of what I think is the most recent version of the document attached -- with Track Changes) [Chuck Gomes] Is there supposed to be an attached redline version? If so, I didn't receive it. On 3/2/2018 3:13 PM, Chuck wrote: 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' <mailto:bbacon@pir.org> <bbacon@pir.org>; 'Chuck' <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> <consult@cgomes.com>; 'GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> ' <mailto: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 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met@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@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@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@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@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@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-5
