August 2019 - IRT.RegDataPolicy

Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] [Ext] RE: Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion
by Dennis Chang 04 Sep '19

04 Sep '19

Dear IRT, To spur continued IRT discussion on Rec 7, clarify potential confusion, and align assumptions, I am asking two questions. Question 1: In consideration of Mark’s comment below, “workbooks themselves are non-definitive (p171),” should the workbook used to guide the requirement for our policy? Here is the full paragraph from p171. “Further, the citation of the Workbooks in Recommendation #7 should be removed. The agreed aggregate data set is presented in the text of the Recommendation as that was the agreed-upon text. The Workbooks are informational and should not be incorporated by reference. Question 2: If the answer is yes to the question above, can the IRT agree to accept the version 1.8 found in the wiki rather than the version 1.4 that the Final Report links to? It’s important that the IRT’s decision on this be documented here. Please note that “20 Feb - Data Elements Matrix_v1.8.xlsx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/96207076/Data%20Elements%2…>” is the last entry found on the Data Elements Workbooks page: https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/e.+Data+Elements+Workbooks Please reply with your answers, comments, or question. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv(a)microsoft.com> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 2:20 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson(a)verisign.com>, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org>, "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion I note that RySG says that the workbooks themselves are non-definitive (p171). So even though the data elements matrix document is on the “workbooks wiki”, it’s the matrix document rather than the workbooks themselves which should be used, I think. For clarity we should use the Data Elements Matrix document v1.8, if in fact that is the final version. From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:54 AM To: Anderson, Marc <mcanderson(a)verisign.com>; dennis.chang(a)icann.org; irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion Thanks for keeping us on the same page and on track Marc. I think your suggestion to stick with the workbooks from the final report makes the most sense. Theo On 8-8-2019 20:25, Anderson, Marc via IRT.RegDataPolicy wrote: IPT and IRT members, The version 1.4 of the Data Elements Matrix that Margie references is an old version. The correct final version of the Data Elements Matrix is 1.8 and can be found on the Data Elements Workbooks page of the ePDP wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/e.+Data+Elements+Workbooks [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protec…> In looking at the final report, I see that the link provided for “illustrative purposes” at the end of recommendation #7 (page 10) goes to the old version 1.4 of the Data Elements Matrix. I hadn’t noticed this before as I have been referring exclusively to the Data Element workbooks found in Appendix D (which start on page 92 of the Final Report). I suggest everyone make sure you are looking at the correct version 1.8 of the Data Elements Matrix, or better yet stick with the workbooks contained in the Final Report (Appendix D). These are consistent with version 1.8 of the Matrix document. Best, Marc From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:07 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>; IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org><mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion Hi All – After our IRT call, I reread Rec 7 and the supporting appendices, per Marc A’s suggestion. Rec 7 links to the Data Elements Matrix on Page 10 (attached for your convenience) , which clearly describes what data is required to be transferred to the registry from the registrar, and what data is optional. The 3rd page of the Data Elements Matrix (Transfer from Registrar to Registry), clearly notes an R (Required) for the contact data fields that are required to be transferred, which include all of the registrant contacts except for: * the Org field * the Tech Contact Name and Email Address , which are listed as O-RNH (Optional for the Registered Name Holder) for the purposes listed on the matrix (including, Purpose 2). As a result, the new policy continues the “thick WHOIS” requirements and our implementation needs to be consistent with Thick WHOIS, especially in light of the Board’s resolution and its anguage in the scorecard. Also, please note that this data elements matrix is also relevant to our prior discussion regarding what “optional” means with regard to the Tech Contact and the Org Contact in Rec. 5, footnote 7. Rec 5 also links to this Data Elements Matrix, and clarifies whether a field is optional to the registrar, registry or registered name holder. Since the data elements of Tech Field and Org Field are clearly marked as O-RNH and do not include O-Rr (Optional for Registrar), our prior conclusions on Rec .5 need to be revisited in light of this documentation. I propose we discuss this at our next IRT meeting. All the best, Margie _______________________________________________ IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list IRT.RegDataPolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:IRT.RegDataPolicy@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protec…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protec…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protec…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

3 4

Rec 10 consideration: error in recommendation to be corrected? or proceed with implementing the recommendation as is.
by Dennis Chang 03 Sep '19

03 Sep '19

Dear IRT, Thanks for supporting the IRT call today. Regarding the Recommendation 10, there was a suggestion that we have a table. I wanted to show you this IRT.Data Elements Matrix today but unfortunately my computer quit on me. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c235iuKWX5-lKufkR67pPF0OEf-Fw3W94WP… As you may recall, this matrix is referenced in the IRT.Rec 10 Analysis document but may not have not been used the IRT in the analysis. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OuZT7xL5wuV1ynVmpVNxFycU93gvPlvbzx_g9lX…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OuZT7xL5wuV1ynVmpVNxFycU93gvPlvbzx_g9lX…> I believe the IRT.Data Elements Matrix already offers the table you are wanting. I draw your attention to the Registrar sheet cell 8X and 9X where we’ve flag these for IRT attention. [cid:image001.png@01D55845.2EDE3580] We are making it clear here that what’s reflected is aligned with the recommendation and we are now considering changing this to be “inconsistent with the recommendation” due to an error in the recommendation language. We, as the implementation team, can deviate from the recommendation if we all agree that we are correcting an obvious error and not changing the policy. Lack of an IRT agreement is likely to default in the implementation language true to the recommendation language at least for the public comment. The way the recommendation reads now is Registry Expiry Date MUST be published by both Registrar and Registry Operators according to the recommendation, while Registrar Registration Expiration Date MAY be published [cid:image002.png@01D55845.2EDE3580] I submit this for IRT consideration and proceeding with caution as not to rush an important implementaiton decision. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director Telephone: +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

5 5

Rec 27 Analysis Review
by Dennis Chang 27 Aug '19

27 Aug '19

Dear IRT, The Recommendation 27 Analysis is ready for your review and added to the IRT task list as: 38 Review Recommendation 27 Analysis<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LNTK48adeeU_dmjSBGth04dqDdhamVKHbP5FQ4T…> 20190910 This is the most audacious assignment ever, I believe, with a massive amount of work and broad coordination. We are fortunate to have a diverse group IRT with varied expertise we can leverage here. Please focus on your area of expertise and experience first. Early comments are most welcomed! -- Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> One World – One Internet

1 0

Meeting on 21.08.2019
by Kristina Hakobyan 22 Aug '19

22 Aug '19

Dear Andrea, I'm sorry but won't be able to participate in today meeting. Best regards, Kristina Hakobyan

4 3

Rec 10 alternative version - split requirements for Registrar and Registry
by Dennis Chang 19 Aug '19

19 Aug '19

Dear IRT, Please note that an alternative version that separates the requirements for Registrar and Registry Operator have been added to Rec 10 Analysis Doc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OuZT7xL5wuV1ynVmpVNxFycU93gvPlvbzx_g9lX… This is done to focus the IRT discussion to specific data elements. If it turns out that there is no difference in requirements for Registrar and Registry Operator, we can combine the requirements again. When commenting, please clarify 1. The language is inconsistent with the recommendation * If so, this is an error the recommendation and we need to document it * Or, the implementation language presented must be revised to be consistent with the recommendation. 2. The language is inconsistent with the current practice * If so, this was the intention of the recommendation and current practice must change. * Or, the implementation language presented must be revised to be consistent with the current practice. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director Telephone: +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Rec 23 & 24 next steps
by Sarah Wyld 19 Aug '19

19 Aug '19

Hello Team, I'd like us to discuss our course of action for implementing Rec 23 and Rec 24. I won't copy the full text of both recs here, but I'll copypasta some of the relevant language: *Rec 23*: "...for the new policy on gTLD registration data, the following requirements MUST apply in relation to URS and UDRP until such time as these are superseded by recommendations from the RPMs PDP WG and/or policies from the EPDP regarding disclosure..." *Rec 24*: "...for the new policy on gTLD registration data, the following requirements MUST apply in relation to the Transfer Policy until such time these are superseded by recommendations that may come out of the Transfer Policy review that is being undertaken by the GNSO Council..." I notice that for Rec 23, the IPT has proposed making changes to the URS and UDRP policies. For rec 24 also I found the updated policy in the docs/drive, but there was no email sent out about it, maybe an oversight? While I do agree that these other policies (URS, UDRP, Transfer Policy) need to be updated, I am not sure that this IRT is the right team to make those changes. Instead, I would suggest that these policies should be updated by the Working Groups mentioned in the recommendations: URS and UDRP modified by the RPM PDP WG, and the Transfer Policy by whatever comes out of the review in progress now with the GNSO Council. Our new gTLD registration data policy should include some language that formalizes the requirements of those recommendations until such time as the policies themselves are updated by those other groups. I look forward to hearing feedback on this suggestion from the IRT and IPT members. -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

3 3

Registration Data Policy IRT at ICANN66
by Andrea Glandon 19 Aug '19

19 Aug '19

Dear all, At this time I have submitted the following time slots for the IRT to meet at ICANN66. Once these slots have been confirmed I will let everyone know and send calendar invitations. Wednesday, 06 November 0830-1015 local time Thursday, 07 November 0830-1015 local time Thank you! Andrea Glandon GNSO SO/AC Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: andrea.glandon(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.glandon@icann.org> Skype ID: acglandon76 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global Calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Rec 26 Analysis Review
by Dennis Chang 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear IRT, Recommendation #26 Analysis is ready for your review and added to the IRT Task List. 37 Review Recommendation 26 Analysis<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pHDZQEugoJBlbCl0mUPNjuliCce7I9T5v_M5aTQ…> 20190830 — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director Telephone: +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Rec 24 Analysis Review
by Dennis Chang 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear IRT, Recommendation #24 Analysis is ready for your review and added to the IRT Task list as: 35 Review Recommendation 24 Analysis<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FvGP_m69nO4Pv6NcCONSs1hv6ZTp0o0iDqW8cNc…> 20190828 — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director Telephone: +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Rec 25 Analysis Review
by Dennis Chang 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Dear IRT, Recommendation #25 Analysis is ready for your review and added to the IRT Task list as: 36 Review Recommendation 25 Analysis<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R1eFuboTw1PEbk5GpwXWEUI-Qhh35_MfCV-Mxid…> 20190828 — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director Telephone: +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0