July 2020 - IRT.RegDataPolicy

RDDS Publication Examples
by Dennis Chang 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

Dear IRT, As we work on the policy implementation, we often create documents we use to gain clarity and understanding for ourselves. Here is a document that helped us and could be useful for IRT also. 105 RDDS Publication Example<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qyBPmX4CnYRHbw0oagKOr1ZI36YVR2A60D74eDg…> 20200811 Often, it’s good to see examples and comparison. Documents we create in our team drive such as this one may transition as they mature to find their final home. IRT Drive > Wiki > ICANN.org They will also be categorized as either part of the policy or supplemental educational material. We’ll decide these along the way and some decisions could be made after the public comment also. -- 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

IRT meeting reschedule: from 5 August to 12 August
by Dennis Chang 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

Dear IRT, Next week’s IRT meeting will be rescheduled to the following week. As you noted when we changed the meeting start time last week, many of our IRT members serve on the EPDP Team. IPT is also working on a few documents that we would seek IRT inputs in addition to the OneDoc. I believe using next week to prepare for the IRT meeting in the following week would better serve for a more productive meeting. The agenda that you see for the 5 August 2020 on the wiki will be moved to 12 August. https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2020-08-05+Registration+Data+Pol… We invite you review the sections called out in the agenda. -- 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

Follow on yesterday's call
by Ducos, Sebastien 23 Jul '20

23 Jul '20

Dear IRT, As agreed on yesterday’s call and mentioned at the start of this process, I will provide a write-up of my findings. I intend to share this with the IRT later today. During our call yesterday today’s GNSO Council call was mentioned, and so was the fact that I might report my findings to the GNSO Council then. To be clear, while REC 27 is slated on the GNSO agenda for today, REC 7 is not. I may report on our progress, as I have done in the past, should questions be asked, but I will not share any sort of finding at this stage. Even if I had provided my write-up prior to the Council call, I am committed not to present results until agreed by all. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos Neustar, Inc. / Senior Client Services Manager Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office: +61 3 9886 3710 Mobile: +61 449 623 491 / home.neustar<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar : Facebook<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc__;!!N14HnBHF… > LinkedIn<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349__;!!N14HnB… > Twitter<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc__;!!N14HnBHF!… > The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Proposed New Section 11.8 - Abusive Requests
by Crossman, Matthew 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Hi team, Apologies for not circulating this in advance of the call. Below is the proposed CPH language for a new Section 11.8 to address potential abuse of the request process. Best, Matt *** 11.8 A Registry Operator or Registrar MAY take corrective action to address abusive requests/requestors. Corrective action MAY include re-categorizing urgent requests to non-urgent, denying repetitive or incomplete requests, requiring additional information as a default for abusive requestors, and other measures deemed appropriate by the Registry Operator or Registrar. Matthew Crossman | Amazon Corporate Counsel gTLD Registry, IP P: 206-266-1103 | C: 530-574-2956 Email: mmcross(a)amazon.com<mailto:mmcross@amazon.com>

1 0

EPDP clashing with IRT meeting
by Rubens Kuhl 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

A number of CPH members and likely NCPH and non-GNSO members are still stuck in an EPDP call. I suggest we start 30 minutes late and close at the scheduled time to accommodate that. Rubens

1 0

Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Phase 1, Rec 17.2 Study: Legal/Natural Differentiation
by Dennis Chang 16 Jul '20

16 Jul '20

Dear IRT, This report has been added to the IRT wiki page: RegDataPolicy Implementation Documents https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/RegDataPolicy+Implementation+Doc… As you may note, we are building the wiki space in preparation for the Public Comment. We welcome suggestions for the wiki space. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 12:10 To: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Phase 1, Rec 17.2 Study: Legal/Natural Differentiation Dear IRT members, Attached is ICANN org’s analysis in response to the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 17.2 on the differentiation between legal and natural persons, which we have shared with the EPDP Phase 2 team and also sharing with you for your information. A summary of the key points is included in the note below. Please let us know of any questions. Best regards, Karen -- Karen Lentz Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 www.icann.org From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 12:03 PM To: "King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Phase 1, Rec 17.2 Study: Legal/Natural Differentiation Dear EPDP team, Please see the below note and attached study on legal/natural differentiation from Karen Lentz, Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services. Thank you, Eleeza and Dan ICANN org liaisons ------ Dear EPDP Team, Attached is the report on risks, costs, and feasibility of differentiation between legal and natural persons, per the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation 17.2. Some key points are summarized below. · We were asked to respond to the Phase 1 recommendation 17.2 on evaluating the risks, costs, and feasibility of differentiating between legal and natural persons in registration data directory services. · The report is to help inform the policy deliberations, and does not provide policy recommendations. As discussed with the EPDP Team, providing recommendations or normative assessments as to the differentiation between Legal and Natural persons was not in scope for the study. · The report reviews available analysis on this topic, including a review of academic literature and legal advice, as well as inputs from a questionnaire sent to the EPDP Team and ICANN Community with questions on differentiation. · The study uses a model that illustrates how risks, costs/benefits and feasibility are affected under different policy scenarios. The aim is to demonstrate how changing a variable at the policy level affects the system as a whole. · The report finds that differentiation would, in effect, redistribute the risks and costs associated with processing registration data. · End-users of registration data noted a number of risks and costs from having access to fewer data records as a result of the data redaction associated with applicable laws and policies (e.g., decreased cybercrime and/or intellectual property enforcement capabilities). · The model presented illustrates how this redistribution of risks and costs might change under a policy requiring differentiation. In such a scenario, contracted parties would bear many of the costs and risks associated with differentiation, such as the cost of devising and implementing an accurate and reliable method to differentiate, as well as the risk of legal liability should such a method fail to accurately differentiate. · Differentiation could pose a cost to natural person registrants, if it results in some proportion of natural person registrant data being published as a result of error or negligence. · The benefits of differentiation, as well as the impact of measures to mitigate the risks and costs of differentiation, may outweigh these risks and costs under a scenario in which differentiation is a policy requirement. It remains for the EPDP Team to determine the relative balance of these factors as they deliberate on the topic. I understand the Phase 2 team is closing with its work plan and will not be addressing the differentiation issue in its Final Report. Nonetheless we wanted to share the information, which can also be used as a basis for continuing discussion, as the GNSO Council is discussing how to proceed with the priority 2 issues. I also acknowledge that the report delivery is later than we hoped. We appreciate the team’s interest in this and can support further discussion at the relevant phase, and when the Team has had an opportunity to review. Best regards, Karen -- Karen Lentz Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 www.icann.org

1 0

IRT Task 104: Scenarios of Registration Data required beyond the life of the registration
by Dennis Chang 09 Jul '20

09 Jul '20

Dear IRT, Thank you again for your support of the IRT meeting today. As mentioned briefly, I’ve added another task to the IRT Task List in our workbook This document provides examples (scenarios) for data requirement beyond the life of registration for your reference. 104 Review Data Retention Use Cases document and provide input on the Flagged Item for Discussion<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z-aVhlRDqGEAaY2rNokxqENKKQ89vLv5-YsUqs0…> 20200620 During the reviewing of this document, we’ve identified a potential issue and flagged it at the bottom of the document. We’d appreciate IRT’s review and comments on this document. -- 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

FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Phase 1, Rec 17.2 Study: Legal/Natural Differentiation
by Karen Lentz 08 Jul '20

08 Jul '20

Dear IRT members, Attached is ICANN org’s analysis in response to the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 17.2 on the differentiation between legal and natural persons, which we have shared with the EPDP Phase 2 team and also sharing with you for your information. A summary of the key points is included in the note below. Please let us know of any questions. Best regards, Karen -- Karen Lentz Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 www.icann.org From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 12:03 PM To: "King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Phase 1, Rec 17.2 Study: Legal/Natural Differentiation Dear EPDP team, Please see the below note and attached study on legal/natural differentiation from Karen Lentz, Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services. Thank you, Eleeza and Dan ICANN org liaisons ------ Dear EPDP Team, Attached is the report on risks, costs, and feasibility of differentiation between legal and natural persons, per the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation 17.2. Some key points are summarized below. · We were asked to respond to the Phase 1 recommendation 17.2 on evaluating the risks, costs, and feasibility of differentiating between legal and natural persons in registration data directory services. · The report is to help inform the policy deliberations, and does not provide policy recommendations. As discussed with the EPDP Team, providing recommendations or normative assessments as to the differentiation between Legal and Natural persons was not in scope for the study. · The report reviews available analysis on this topic, including a review of academic literature and legal advice, as well as inputs from a questionnaire sent to the EPDP Team and ICANN Community with questions on differentiation. · The study uses a model that illustrates how risks, costs/benefits and feasibility are affected under different policy scenarios. The aim is to demonstrate how changing a variable at the policy level affects the system as a whole. · The report finds that differentiation would, in effect, redistribute the risks and costs associated with processing registration data. · End-users of registration data noted a number of risks and costs from having access to fewer data records as a result of the data redaction associated with applicable laws and policies (e.g., decreased cybercrime and/or intellectual property enforcement capabilities). · The model presented illustrates how this redistribution of risks and costs might change under a policy requiring differentiation. In such a scenario, contracted parties would bear many of the costs and risks associated with differentiation, such as the cost of devising and implementing an accurate and reliable method to differentiate, as well as the risk of legal liability should such a method fail to accurately differentiate. · Differentiation could pose a cost to natural person registrants, if it results in some proportion of natural person registrant data being published as a result of error or negligence. · The benefits of differentiation, as well as the impact of measures to mitigate the risks and costs of differentiation, may outweigh these risks and costs under a scenario in which differentiation is a policy requirement. It remains for the EPDP Team to determine the relative balance of these factors as they deliberate on the topic. I understand the Phase 2 team is closing with its work plan and will not be addressing the differentiation issue in its Final Report. Nonetheless we wanted to share the information, which can also be used as a basis for continuing discussion, as the GNSO Council is discussing how to proceed with the priority 2 issues. I also acknowledge that the report delivery is later than we hoped. We appreciate the team’s interest in this and can support further discussion at the relevant phase, and when the Team has had an opportunity to review. Best regards, Karen -- Karen Lentz Senior Director, Policy Research & Data Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 www.icann.org

1 0

FW: Maarten Botterman to GNSO Council Co-chairs - EPDP Phase 1, Rec 7
by Ducos, Sebastien 08 Jul '20

08 Jul '20

Hi Team, This was shared with GNSO Council earlier today. I know it was forwarded to the RySG, and may have been shared with other groups. I wanted to make sure we all had it. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos Neustar, Inc. / Senior Client Services Manager Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office: +61 3 9886 3710 Mobile: +61 449 623 491 / home.neustar<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar : Facebook<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc__;!!N14HnBHF… > LinkedIn<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349__;!!N14HnB… > Twitter<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc__;!!N14HnBHF!… > The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org<mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org>> Date: mer. 8 juil. 2020 à 08:48 Subject: [gnso-chairs] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to GNSO Council Co-chairs - EPDP Phase 1, Rec 7 To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>>, gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org<mailto:maarten.botterman@board.icann.org>>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org<mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org<mailto:Correspondence@icann.org>>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>> Dear Pam Little and Rafik Dammak, Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman regarding the EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 7 in response to your letter of 29 May<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspond…> providing clarity to guide the implementation. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Senior Manager 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094

1 0

Registration Data Policy IRT ICANN68 Meeting
by Andrea Glandon 06 Jul '20

06 Jul '20

Dear all, Please find the recordings & transcript from the ICANN68 meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/PoIEC Thank you. Andrea Glandon GNSO SO/AC Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 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…>

2 1