All OK with me. Thanks Beth. Steve [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@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] On Behalf Of Beth Bacon Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:25 PM To: Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Hi Chuck, My responses are in line below and the attached version has the one small edit discussed below. Thank you! Beth From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:59 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Importance: High 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. Yes. Thank you, Steve. * Note: I am considering leaving my comment in our final deliverable? Does anyone think we should not leave it or have another suggestion? Yes. I think it should stay in the final deliverable. 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. I think we could leave in the registrant bullet and sub-bullets as Steve's edit shows that the registrant "could" take action. In addition, I added a quick (what I think is a corresponding) edit to Q1. * Is anyone any favor of deleting registrant from the answer to Q1? I think the edit makes it ok to stay at the moment. * 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? That would be fine with me. I bend to the will of the group on this though. I hope all of you will respond today because we are quickly running out of time. Chuck

Thanks Beth and Kathy. Kathy - please see my responses to your comments below. Chuck From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 1:18 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org; Chuck Gomes, NEW 2017 <consult@cgomes.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Hi Chuck and All, I hope in the future we might be able to use Google Docs, as they are easy to send links around, and quick to monitor. I appreciate the reminder about this document, and note that my concerns, as shared below (in brief) and in the doc (in detail), run deep on this one and think changes are needed. Best, Kathy (response in blue below and "track changes" in doc) On 3/6/2018 3:25 PM, Beth Bacon wrote: Hi Chuck, My responses are in line below and the attached version has the one small edit discussed below. Thank you! Beth From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:59 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Importance: High 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. Yes. Thank you, Steve. * Note: I am considering leaving my comment in our final deliverable? Does anyone think we should not leave it or have another suggestion? Yes. I think it should stay in the final deliverable. - No, I think this question needs to be completely deleted as ICANN is not a regulatory agency, and therefore, cannot collect and process RDS registrant data for regulatory purposes. If ICANN wants to provide a regulatory authority with information about registries and registrars operating within their jurisdictions, that's a different question, and not an RDS one. [Chuck Gomes] Deleting the question is not an option; all DTs are responding to the same questions. Regarding your rationale, if you had reviewed all of the WG materials on this subject, you would know that the WG has not reached any agreement yet on whether any RDS data should be processed for this purpose and that includes collection. You are reading way too much into this exercise and the questions being asked. After the DT responses for all of the proposed purposes are presented and discussed by the full WG on this coming Saturday morning, we will then return to what we were doing a few weeks ago and deliberate on whether or not any of the purposes are legitimate for processing any RDS data elements. In doing that we will make distinctions between collection and access. You along with all WG members will be welcome to share your opinions as you have done above when we do that. But for now I ask you focus on the task at hand. Question 2: Objective The first bullet point does not outline an objective consistent with ICANN's mission for the collection and processing under ICANN rules of registrant data. Accordingly, I've deleted registrant from the list. [Chuck Gomes] Steve has provided an alternative view in response to your points and I have forwarded that to Maguy Serad for input from Compliance. As I am sure you know, there are many WG members who disagree with your interpretation of ICANN's mission. The second bullet point sets out objections so vague and undefined as to be outside the "purpose" of anything within ICANN's mission, and accordingly, recommend for deletion. 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. I think we could leave in the registrant bullet and sub-bullets as Steve's edit shows that the registrant "could" take action. In addition, I added a quick (what I think is a corresponding) edit to Q1. - Chuck, I agree with you here: that the bullet and all sub-bullets about registrants should be deleted. We have been told in many memos that purpose has to be ICANN's -- and we are not a regulatory or law enforcement agency. [Chuck Gomes] Does ICANN have to be regulatory agency to allow access RDS data? Does ICANN have to be a law enforcement agency to allow LEAs access to registrant data? Where is that written? Personally, I would agree with you if we are talking about collection of data, but would like to understand on what objective basis you make the same conclusion about providing access. * Is anyone any favor of deleting registrant from the answer to Q1? I think the edit makes it ok to stay at the moment. Yes, definitely (Kathy) * 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? That would be fine with me. I bend to the will of the group on this though. I hope all of you will respond today because we are quickly running out of time. 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

Thanks, Farell but I will be sending the final version to the WG list in the next few minutes. Chuck From: Farell Folly [mailto:farellfolly@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 12:43 PM To: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Dear All, I start having trouble following the versions of the draft (since I was off a couple of days). If you don't mind we can continue editing in this google docs document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hetfv3gycRgT9hjypqyR7QP5UF5uP4Fhm3EjYFNA...> . If this is not the latest document, please send me the correct version and I will share it with you all again. By the way, I still want to add that even if ICANN is not a regulatory or a law enforcement authority, It should NOT be a bad idea in a multi-stakeholder context that ICANN consider to implement or encourage measures that can facilitate the work of such agencies (in accordance of course rights of privacy, transparency, etc.) without of course zero tolerance/possibility to act on their behalf (or as them). Le mer. 7 mars 2018 à 00:29, Chuck <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > a écrit : Thanks Beth and Kathy. Kathy – please see my responses to your comments below. Chuck From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 1:18 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> ; Chuck Gomes, NEW 2017 <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Hi Chuck and All, I hope in the future we might be able to use Google Docs, as they are easy to send links around, and quick to monitor. I appreciate the reminder about this document, and note that my concerns, as shared below (in brief) and in the doc (in detail), run deep on this one and think changes are needed. Best, Kathy (response in blue below and "track changes" in doc) On 3/6/2018 3:25 PM, Beth Bacon wrote: Hi Chuck, My responses are in line below and the attached version has the one small edit discussed below. Thank you! Beth From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:59 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose Importance: High 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. Yes. Thank you, Steve. * Note: I am considering leaving my comment in our final deliverable? Does anyone think we should not leave it or have another suggestion? Yes. I think it should stay in the final deliverable. - No, I think this question needs to be completely deleted as ICANN is not a regulatory agency, and therefore, cannot collect and process RDS registrant data for regulatory purposes. If ICANN wants to provide a regulatory authority with information about registries and registrars operating within their jurisdictions, that's a different question, and not an RDS one. [Chuck Gomes] Deleting the question is not an option; all DTs are responding to the same questions. Regarding your rationale, if you had reviewed all of the WG materials on this subject, you would know that the WG has not reached any agreement yet on whether any RDS data should be processed for this purpose and that includes collection. You are reading way too much into this exercise and the questions being asked. After the DT responses for all of the proposed purposes are presented and discussed by the full WG on this coming Saturday morning, we will then return to what we were doing a few weeks ago and deliberate on whether or not any of the purposes are legitimate for processing any RDS data elements. In doing that we will make distinctions between collection and access. You along with all WG members will be welcome to share your opinions as you have done above when we do that. But for now I ask you focus on the task at hand. Question 2: Objective The first bullet point does not outline an objective consistent with ICANN's mission for the collection and processing under ICANN rules of registrant data. Accordingly, I've deleted registrant from the list. [Chuck Gomes] Steve has provided an alternative view in response to your points and I have forwarded that to Maguy Serad for input from Compliance. As I am sure you know, there are many WG members who disagree with your interpretation of ICANN’s mission. The second bullet point sets out objections so vague and undefined as to be outside the "purpose" of anything within ICANN's mission, and accordingly, recommend for deletion. 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. I think we could leave in the registrant bullet and sub-bullets as Steve’s edit shows that the registrant “could” take action. In addition, I added a quick (what I think is a corresponding) edit to Q1. - Chuck, I agree with you here: that the bullet and all sub-bullets about registrants should be deleted. We have been told in many memos that purpose has to be ICANN's -- and we are not a regulatory or law enforcement agency. [Chuck Gomes] Does ICANN have to be regulatory agency to allow access RDS data? Does ICANN have to be a law enforcement agency to allow LEAs access to registrant data? Where is that written? Personally, I would agree with you if we are talking about collection of data, but would like to understand on what objective basis you make the same conclusion about providing access. * Is anyone any favor of deleting registrant from the answer to Q1? I think the edit makes it ok to stay at the moment. Yes, definitely (Kathy) * 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? That would be fine with me. I bend to the will of the group on this though. I hope all of you will respond today because we are quickly running out of time. 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Regards @__f_f__ https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf