- IRT.RegDataPolicy - lists.icann.org

ICANN78 Registration Data Policy IRT Session
by ICANN Policy Calendar 21 Oct '23

21 Oct '23

https://icann78.sched.com/event/1T4Mj/gnso-registration-data-policy-irt

1 0

Registration Data Policy publication
by Karen Lentz 14 Sep '23

14 Sep '23

Dear IRT members, Dennis is currently on PTO and he had asked that I update the IRT while he is out. As Dennis had informed the IRT last week, upon receipt of a letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23a…> from the GAC to the Board on 23 August, we had decided to hold the publication until the Board and ICANN org had a chance to understand GAC’s concerns and suggestions. During the Board Workshop held in Istanbul this weekend, the Board discussed the urgent requests provision in light of the GAC letter and a letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08se…> of 8 September from the Registrar Stakeholder Group. The Board decided that additional time is needed to consider the appropriate next steps and therefore we will continue to hold the publication until future notice. We will ensure to keep the IRT in the loop as we have updates. Thank you again for your continued support to this implementation work. Best regards, Karen

3 2

Policy publication postponed - GAC letter in review
by Dennis Chang 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Dear IRT, Please be advised that we are postponing the publication of Registration Data Policy. Last week, the Board received a letter from the GAC<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23a…> regarding the publication of the policy and the response time requirement for the Urgent Requests. As with any letters from stakeholder groups to the Board, ICANN org along with the Board needs time to review the letter to clearly understand the concern prior to taking an important step. Thank you for your patience and I’ll keep the IRT informed of our progress. -- 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

6 5

Publication scheduled for 29 August 2023. Re: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Next steps with Policy
by Dennis Chang 22 Aug '23

22 Aug '23

Thanks, IRT! Indeed, my pleasure to work with all of you also. ICANN org team is busy and driving to get this policy published on schedule. We are targeting Tuesday, 29 August 2023. More to come on this but just reminding the IRT that we’ve got a lot of collaborative implementations ahead of us for the next 18 months. Please don’t go away. I’ll give you another heads up as we get closer to the Pub Date. Thanks, Dennis Chang From: Elizabeth Bacon <bbacon(a)pir.org> Date: Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:59 AM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com>, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org>, "Roger D Carney via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Next steps with Policy Language for publicationin August 2023. I want echo Sarah’s comments. Working with this team of dedicated, passionate individuals has been a great opportunity. A special thank you to ICANN staff who always strive towards compromise and progress and provided the team with levels of expertise and support that can’t be matched. All the best, Beth From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Sarah Wyld via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:13 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org>, Roger D Carney via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Next steps with Policy Language for publicationin August 2023. CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are not expecting. ________________________________ Hello Dennis and everyone on the IRT and IPT teams, What exciting news, it's so great that we have successfully concluded this implementation work. Thank you all so much for this educational and wonderfully challenging and fulfilling experience as we worked together to implement these policy recommendations. I have appreciated collaborating with and learning from you, and look forward to working together on other projects in the future. All the best, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> From: Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Sent: August 7, 2023 7:19 PM To: Roger D Carney via IRT.RegDataPolicy<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Next steps with Policy Language for publicationin August 2023. Dear IRT, On 24 July 2023, we posted the complete Registration Data Policy language after the IRT meeting where we found a compromised solution to the Urgent Request. (24 July 2023 version [protect-us.mimecast.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ir90CQWBo7hlNQ…>) We have offered an opportunity for IRT to propose an alternate set of language that could be better in terms of reflecting our agreement and alignment to the recommendation. As of 2 Aug 2023, we received one submission for an alternate policy language regarding Urgent Request. Based on the comments received, it’s clear that the 24 July 2023 version is the one that we should stay with. I have consulted with our GNSO Council Liaison, Sebastien Ducos, and confirmed that we’ve followed our implementation process fully and there is no need for escalation to the GNSO Council. FYI Seb is currently on holiday but was very kind to take my call to support us. This may be a good time for us to be reminded of the IRT Instructions [protect-us.mimecast.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-us.mimecast.com/s/cV9eCR6Dp1i0g6…> in the IRT workbook when we began our work. Therefore, we believe we are now complete with our policy language and proceeding to ICANN org internal briefing/reviews. We will follow up with IRT afterwards. I am truly grateful to this IRT for resolving the toughest policy requirement item (referred to some as the “unresolvable?") at the IRT to avoid escalation and delays. It’s a demonstration of how well this IRT has worked together towards a common goal. Thank you again for your amazing dedication and support as we continue to strive to achieve our goal of August 2023 Publication. -- Gratefully yours, Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang www.icann.org [protect-us.mimecast.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ErZ4CVOKwQSkPJ…> One World – One Internet

1 1

Next steps with Policy Language for publication in August 2023.
by Dennis Chang 11 Aug '23

11 Aug '23

Dear IRT, On 24 July 2023, we posted the complete Registration Data Policy language after the IRT meeting where we found a compromised solution to the Urgent Request. (24 July 2023 version<https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/RegDataPolicy+Implementation+Res…>) We have offered an opportunity for IRT to propose an alternate set of language that could be better in terms of reflecting our agreement and alignment to the recommendation. As of 2 Aug 2023, we received one submission for an alternate policy language regarding Urgent Request. Based on the comments received, it’s clear that the 24 July 2023 version is the one that we should stay with. I have consulted with our GNSO Council Liaison, Sebastien Ducos, and confirmed that we’ve followed our implementation process fully and there is no need for escalation to the GNSO Council. FYI Seb is currently on holiday but was very kind to take my call to support us. This may be a good time for us to be reminded of the IRT Instructions<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r8yMMEFIFS-KHGMsnLdVbdn0O_GWhf7vNLl…> in the IRT workbook when we began our work. Therefore, we believe we are now complete with our policy language and proceeding to ICANN org internal briefing/reviews. We will follow up with IRT afterwards. I am truly grateful to this IRT for resolving the toughest policy requirement item (referred to some as the “unresolvable?") at the IRT to avoid escalation and delays. It’s a demonstration of how well this IRT has worked together towards a common goal. Thank you again for your amazing dedication and support as we continue to strive to achieve our goal of August 2023 Publication. -- Gratefully yours, Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> One World – One Internet

4 3

August Plan for Publication. FW: Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found!
by Dennis Chang 02 Aug '23

02 Aug '23

Dear IRT, Today is the last day of July and it is time to put our pens down so we can proceed with an August policy publication. I am thankful for everyone’s consideration of the latest language<https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/RegDataPolicy+Implementation+Res…> following our meeting and the continued discussions on the list. I understand the desire to do more in adding requirements, but I’ve not found a Recommendation that mandates those suggested requirements. I believe we have done a thorough job in reviewing, analyzing, and converting all 34 recommendations to our policy language. I looked back at the tools we used such as the Status Maps and RecAnalysis in the IRT workbook<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r8yMMEFIFS-KHGMsnLdVbdn0O_GWhf7vNLl…> and am satisfied that we, together, considered all recommendations. Perhaps, a future PDP could take up suggestions for another policy implementation for which I’d be glad to serve as Project Manager. The language provided on 24 July 2023 is the version<https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/RegDataPolicy+Implementation+Res…> that has received the most IRT support to date. The only point remaining which was raised after the call was regarding 10.6.2 and the extra business day for “Complex and Large Number” of requests. There’s been conceptual discussions that were objected to but in order to meet our deadline for publishing the policy it would benefit us to review written proposals for policy language. Therefore, I request that by Wednesday, 2 August 2023, IRT members requesting for changes submit their proposed revisions in the form of suggested policy language (redline of the 24 July 2023 version<https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/RegDataPolicy+Implementation+Res…> baseline). If no such submission is received, we will consider the last version as final and proceed to work on the publication in August. Thank you all for your dedication and support for the last 4 years, and I ask for your continued patience and cooperation as we move into the 18-month implementation phase. There is a lot of work ahead of us to achieve the policy effective date of 11 February 2025. I look forward to your continued support. Gratefully yours, Dennis Chang From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 at 2:24 PM To: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, Attached is a completed draft of the Registration Data Policy including the last two outstanding sections. Section 4.0: Policy Effective Date reflecting the 6+12 plan for the 18-month implementation timeline. Section 10.6: Urgent Request reflecting the solution supported at the IRT meeting last week. (see email below) I believe we now have a good policy that is aligned with all 34 recommendations we will work together to implement. EPDP Phase 1 recommendations (29) May 2019 EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 Recommendations (4) June 2021 Supplemental Recommendation (1) March 2022 As we discussed at our last IRT meeting, we don’t plan on more IRT meetings before we publish our policy in August 2023. We’ll notify you of the publication date after we have coordinated with our publication team. We may have more IRT meetings after we publish to coordinate and collaborate our implementation, but that decision will come later. For now, we will focus on getting this policy published. If you have questions or comments, I request they be submitted in separate emails with Subject line defining the topic. It will help us to collect the information as we address them together. Thank you all once again and I hope you all support the attached policy language for publication and implementation. Gratefully your, Dennis Chang From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:40 AM To: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] RegData IRT Good News. Urgent Request requirement. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, If you haven’t heard already, we did it! We found a solution to Urgent Request supported by IRT at our 90 minutes focused working session this week. Thank you so much for not giving up and working as a team to find this solution. It was impressive to see people still listening to one another, appreciating the different views, and truly collaborating to build on ideas to find the compromised solution. A great demonstration of One Team against the problem. What was that solution? * 24 hours. Respond in 24 hours with the info or an explanation for more time needed. * 2 Business Days. No more than 2 Business Days to Respond. How did this happen? First, thanks to Roger and RrSG for the planting the seed with using both 24 hours and 2 business days in the solution. Instead of outright rejecting it, Laureen and others suggested that we build on it. Thomas came in with a key ingredient – the explanation. Initially, we discussed all the options but created this new one listening to the “interest” behind the positions. Business Days was important because of the business realities in various regions around the world. While Calendar Days sets global time consistency, the team agreed that cultural sensitivity to regions was more important. The dread of “silence” with undetermined timeline using “Business Days” was solved with the promise of a response in 24 hours with an explanation. Thanks to Gabriel expressing the “dread” so eloquently. Overall, it was an exciting finale overcoming the toughest challenge for us. As promised, we’ll draft the policy language using the IRT supported requirements and comeback to you, but I wanted to send you this quick note to express my sincere gratitude for wonderfully responding. I thank those guests that joined to support us too. I noted Ashley, RrSG Chair and Becky, ICANN Board and others supporting us behind the scenes. Please convey our sincere appreciation to your team back home too. THANK YOU! Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> One World – One Internet

3 2

Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found!
by Dennis Chang 01 Aug '23

01 Aug '23

Dear IRT, Attached is a completed draft of the Registration Data Policy including the last two outstanding sections. Section 4.0: Policy Effective Date reflecting the 6+12 plan for the 18-month implementation timeline. Section 10.6: Urgent Request reflecting the solution supported at the IRT meeting last week. (see email below) I believe we now have a good policy that is aligned with all 34 recommendations we will work together to implement. EPDP Phase 1 recommendations (29) May 2019 EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 Recommendations (4) June 2021 Supplemental Recommendation (1) March 2022 As we discussed at our last IRT meeting, we don’t plan on more IRT meetings before we publish our policy in August 2023. We’ll notify you of the publication date after we have coordinated with our publication team. We may have more IRT meetings after we publish to coordinate and collaborate our implementation, but that decision will come later. For now, we will focus on getting this policy published. If you have questions or comments, I request they be submitted in separate emails with Subject line defining the topic. It will help us to collect the information as we address them together. Thank you all once again and I hope you all support the attached policy language for publication and implementation. Gratefully your, Dennis Chang From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:40 AM To: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] RegData IRT Good News. Urgent Request requirement. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, If you haven’t heard already, we did it! We found a solution to Urgent Request supported by IRT at our 90 minutes focused working session this week. Thank you so much for not giving up and working as a team to find this solution. It was impressive to see people still listening to one another, appreciating the different views, and truly collaborating to build on ideas to find the compromised solution. A great demonstration of One Team against the problem. What was that solution? * 24 hours. Respond in 24 hours with the info or an explanation for more time needed. * 2 Business Days. No more than 2 Business Days to Respond. How did this happen? First, thanks to Roger and RrSG for the planting the seed with using both 24 hours and 2 business days in the solution. Instead of outright rejecting it, Laureen and others suggested that we build on it. Thomas came in with a key ingredient – the explanation. Initially, we discussed all the options but created this new one listening to the “interest” behind the positions. Business Days was important because of the business realities in various regions around the world. While Calendar Days sets global time consistency, the team agreed that cultural sensitivity to regions was more important. The dread of “silence” with undetermined timeline using “Business Days” was solved with the promise of a response in 24 hours with an explanation. Thanks to Gabriel expressing the “dread” so eloquently. Overall, it was an exciting finale overcoming the toughest challenge for us. As promised, we’ll draft the policy language using the IRT supported requirements and comeback to you, but I wanted to send you this quick note to express my sincere gratitude for wonderfully responding. I thank those guests that joined to support us too. I noted Ashley, RrSG Chair and Becky, ICANN Board and others supporting us behind the scenes. Please convey our sincere appreciation to your team back home too. THANK YOU! Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> One World – One Internet

7 17

Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] FW: Concerns that proposed solution does not match 7/19 discussion RE: Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found!
by Thomas Rickert | rickert.law 26 Jul '23

26 Jul '23

Hi Gabriel, all, all I can say is I spoke to section of the policy that was on the table /screen when we had the call. Best, Thomas Von: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org> im Auftrag von "Gabriel Andrews via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Antworten an: Gabriel Andrews <gfandrews(a)fbi.gov> Datum: Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 21:14 An: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org> Cc: Gabriel Andrews <gfandrews(a)fbi.gov> Betreff: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] FW: Concerns that proposed solution does not match 7/19 discussion RE: Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found! Hi all – With appreciation for having been included on the call (and noting I won’t receive responses unless my email remains on cc), I just wanted to echo 1. My recollection of the conversation was that Thomas’ did seem to have initial support from the various constituencies, and 2. My understanding of his idea matches what is summarized by 10.6 and 10.6.1 (replacing any prior text indicated in 10.6.2) I don’t recall any discussion of there being two extension requests, and suspect that the continued presence of 10.6.2 is a misunderstanding. Perhaps Thomas can chime in to confirm? ~G From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kapin, Laureen via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:35 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>; irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Concerns that proposed solution does not match 7/19 discussion RE: Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found! Dear Dennis and colleagues, We appreciate the effort the IRT members and staff have taken to get us to this point. I was very grateful for thoughtfulness and flexibility demonstrated during the call. Nevertheless, the Public Safety Working Group colleagues on the 7/19/23 call (myself, Chris, and Gabe) don’t think the current draft has accurately captured the agreement reached during our discussion because it identifies two separate timelines for extensions of time to respond to urgent requests. I understood our discussion as creating a unified timeline for most requests (“without undue delay, generally within 24 hours”) and then a single opportunity to for an up-to-2 business day extension. The circulated version creates two opportunities and timelines for an extension and creates the potential for a longer total timeline to respond (now 3 business days). I reviewed the recording (most relevant part starts at minute 50) and believe it supports my understanding, particularly Thomas’s distillation of the key components of our agreement toward the end of the discussion. I note that part of the misunderstanding seems to have arisen because the current version, for the first time, separates out the timeline for urgent requests into three separate subsections. The public comment version for urgent requests was set forth in its entirety in10.6. Org’s changes to this provision after the public comment period were also set forth in their entirety in 10.6. These were never broken out or considered as stand-alone components of the urgent request timeline. They were only broken out and separated in the version circulated yesterday. Our 7/19 discussion was focused on the entirety of the timeline to respond and setting a ceiling or limit on the response time. The PSWG participants did not view the discussion as just focusing on a partial ceiling that could be extended not one but two times for a total of three business days. Regarding a ceiling for response times, such a result would put us in a worse position than what Dennis had recently proposed (3 calendar days). For clarity, I think 10.6. and 10.6.1 accurately sets forth our discussion: 10.6. For Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure, Registrar and Registry Operator MUST respond, as defined in Section 10.7, without undue delay, generally within 24 hours of receipt. 10.6.1. If Registrar or Registry Operator cannot respond to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure within 24 hours, it MUST notify the requestor within 24 hours of receipt of an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure of the need for an extension to respond. Registrar or Registry Operator’s extension notification to the requestor MUST include (a) confirmation that it has reviewed and considered the Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure on its merits and determined additional time to respond is needed, (b) rationale for why additional time is needed, and (c) the time frame it will respond, as required by Section 10.7, which cannot exceed two (2) business days from the time of the initial receipt of the request. However, I don’t recall that we discussed an additional amount of time beyond the two-business day total response time. Indeed, I thought the whole goal of our discussion was to create a single ceiling beyond the “without undue delay,” generally w/in 24 hours, which we ultimately agreed would expire at 2 business days from receipt. So, I was surprised to see 10.6.2: 10.6.2. In addition to the extension provided for in Section 10.6.1, if responding to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure is complex, or a large number of requests are received by Registrar or Registry Operator, it MAY extend the time for response up to an additional one (1) business day provided it notifies the requestor within (2) business days from the time of the initial receipt of the request of the updated time frame to respond explaining the need for an additional extension of time. The reason that I’m concerned is that we’re now back to a scenario where urgent requests could take three business days to respond to which is what the GAC objected to in its public comment as inconsistent with the nature of an “urgent” request. I think this needs further discussion because I don’t think the current draft accurately reflects what we discussed on 7/19. My suggestion would be to either: 1. Delete 10.6.2 or 2. Add the concepts of “complex” and “large number” to 10.6.1 as part of the rationale that may be shared to justify an extension of time to respond to an urgent request. I suggest that we need an additional call unless this can be resolved via email. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Assistant Director for International Consumer Protection Office of International Affairs Federal Trade Commission lkapin(a)ftc.gov<mailto:lkapin@ftc.gov> From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:24 PM To: irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, Attached is a completed draft of the Registration Data Policy including the last two outstanding sections. Section 4.0: Policy Effective Date reflecting the 6+12 plan for the 18-month implementation timeline. Section 10.6: Urgent Request reflecting the solution supported at the IRT meeting last week. (see email below) I believe we now have a good policy that is aligned with all 34 recommendations we will work together to implement. EPDP Phase 1 recommendations (29) May 2019 EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 Recommendations (4) June 2021 Supplemental Recommendation (1) March 2022 As we discussed at our last IRT meeting, we don’t plan on more IRT meetings before we publish our policy in August 2023. We’ll notify you of the publication date after we have coordinated with our publication team. We may have more IRT meetings after we publish to coordinate and collaborate our implementation, but that decision will come later. For now, we will focus on getting this policy published. If you have questions or comments, I request they be submitted in separate emails with Subject line defining the topic. It will help us to collect the information as we address them together. Thank you all once again and I hope you all support the attached policy language for publication and implementation. Gratefully your, Dennis Chang From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>> Reply-To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:40 AM To: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] RegData IRT Good News. Urgent Request requirement. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, If you haven’t heard already, we did it! We found a solution to Urgent Request supported by IRT at our 90 minutes focused working session this week. Thank you so much for not giving up and working as a team to find this solution. It was impressive to see people still listening to one another, appreciating the different views, and truly collaborating to build on ideas to find the compromised solution. A great demonstration of One Team against the problem. What was that solution? * 24 hours. Respond in 24 hours with the info or an explanation for more time needed. * 2 Business Days. No more than 2 Business Days to Respond. How did this happen? First, thanks to Roger and RrSG for the planting the seed with using both 24 hours and 2 business days in the solution. Instead of outright rejecting it, Laureen and others suggested that we build on it. Thomas came in with a key ingredient – the explanation. Initially, we discussed all the options but created this new one listening to the “interest” behind the positions. Business Days was important because of the business realities in various regions around the world. While Calendar Days sets global time consistency, the team agreed that cultural sensitivity to regions was more important. The dread of “silence” with undetermined timeline using “Business Days” was solved with the promise of a response in 24 hours with an explanation. Thanks to Gabriel expressing the “dread” so eloquently. Overall, it was an exciting finale overcoming the toughest challenge for us. As promised, we’ll draft the policy language using the IRT supported requirements and comeback to you, but I wanted to send you this quick note to express my sincere gratitude for wonderfully responding. I thank those guests that joined to support us too. I noted Ashley, RrSG Chair and Becky, ICANN Board and others supporting us behind the scenes. Please convey our sincere appreciation to your team back home too. THANK YOU! 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: Concerns that proposed solution does not match 7/19 discussion RE: Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found!
by Gabriel Andrews 25 Jul '23

25 Jul '23

Hi all - With appreciation for having been included on the call (and noting I won't receive responses unless my email remains on cc), I just wanted to echo 1. My recollection of the conversation was that Thomas' did seem to have initial support from the various constituencies, and 2. My understanding of his idea matches what is summarized by 10.6 and 10.6.1 (replacing any prior text indicated in 10.6.2) I don't recall any discussion of there being two extension requests, and suspect that the continued presence of 10.6.2 is a misunderstanding. Perhaps Thomas can chime in to confirm? ~G From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kapin, Laureen via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:35 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>; irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Concerns that proposed solution does not match 7/19 discussion RE: Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found! Dear Dennis and colleagues, We appreciate the effort the IRT members and staff have taken to get us to this point. I was very grateful for thoughtfulness and flexibility demonstrated during the call. Nevertheless, the Public Safety Working Group colleagues on the 7/19/23 call (myself, Chris, and Gabe) don't think the current draft has accurately captured the agreement reached during our discussion because it identifies two separate timelines for extensions of time to respond to urgent requests. I understood our discussion as creating a unified timeline for most requests ("without undue delay, generally within 24 hours") and then a single opportunity to for an up-to-2 business day extension. The circulated version creates two opportunities and timelines for an extension and creates the potential for a longer total timeline to respond (now 3 business days). I reviewed the recording (most relevant part starts at minute 50) and believe it supports my understanding, particularly Thomas's distillation of the key components of our agreement toward the end of the discussion. I note that part of the misunderstanding seems to have arisen because the current version, for the first time, separates out the timeline for urgent requests into three separate subsections. The public comment version for urgent requests was set forth in its entirety in10.6. Org's changes to this provision after the public comment period were also set forth in their entirety in 10.6. These were never broken out or considered as stand-alone components of the urgent request timeline. They were only broken out and separated in the version circulated yesterday. Our 7/19 discussion was focused on the entirety of the timeline to respond and setting a ceiling or limit on the response time. The PSWG participants did not view the discussion as just focusing on a partial ceiling that could be extended not one but two times for a total of three business days. Regarding a ceiling for response times, such a result would put us in a worse position than what Dennis had recently proposed (3 calendar days). For clarity, I think 10.6. and 10.6.1 accurately sets forth our discussion: 10.6. For Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure, Registrar and Registry Operator MUST respond, as defined in Section 10.7, without undue delay, generally within 24 hours of receipt. 10.6.1. If Registrar or Registry Operator cannot respond to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure within 24 hours, it MUST notify the requestor within 24 hours of receipt of an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure of the need for an extension to respond. Registrar or Registry Operator's extension notification to the requestor MUST include (a) confirmation that it has reviewed and considered the Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure on its merits and determined additional time to respond is needed, (b) rationale for why additional time is needed, and (c) the time frame it will respond, as required by Section 10.7, which cannot exceed two (2) business days from the time of the initial receipt of the request. However, I don't recall that we discussed an additional amount of time beyond the two-business day total response time. Indeed, I thought the whole goal of our discussion was to create a single ceiling beyond the "without undue delay," generally w/in 24 hours, which we ultimately agreed would expire at 2 business days from receipt. So, I was surprised to see 10.6.2: 10.6.2. In addition to the extension provided for in Section 10.6.1, if responding to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure is complex, or a large number of requests are received by Registrar or Registry Operator, it MAY extend the time for response up to an additional one (1) business day provided it notifies the requestor within (2) business days from the time of the initial receipt of the request of the updated time frame to respond explaining the need for an additional extension of time. The reason that I'm concerned is that we're now back to a scenario where urgent requests could take three business days to respond to which is what the GAC objected to in its public comment as inconsistent with the nature of an "urgent" request. I think this needs further discussion because I don't think the current draft accurately reflects what we discussed on 7/19. My suggestion would be to either: 1. Delete 10.6.2 or 2. Add the concepts of "complex" and "large number" to 10.6.1 as part of the rationale that may be shared to justify an extension of time to respond to an urgent request. I suggest that we need an additional call unless this can be resolved via email. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Assistant Director for International Consumer Protection Office of International Affairs Federal Trade Commission lkapin(a)ftc.gov<mailto:lkapin@ftc.gov> From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:24 PM To: irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Review RegData complete draft Re: Good News. Urgent Request. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, Attached is a completed draft of the Registration Data Policy including the last two outstanding sections. Section 4.0: Policy Effective Date reflecting the 6+12 plan for the 18-month implementation timeline. Section 10.6: Urgent Request reflecting the solution supported at the IRT meeting last week. (see email below) I believe we now have a good policy that is aligned with all 34 recommendations we will work together to implement. EPDP Phase 1 recommendations (29) May 2019 EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 Recommendations (4) June 2021 Supplemental Recommendation (1) March 2022 As we discussed at our last IRT meeting, we don't plan on more IRT meetings before we publish our policy in August 2023. We'll notify you of the publication date after we have coordinated with our publication team. We may have more IRT meetings after we publish to coordinate and collaborate our implementation, but that decision will come later. For now, we will focus on getting this policy published. If you have questions or comments, I request they be submitted in separate emails with Subject line defining the topic. It will help us to collect the information as we address them together. Thank you all once again and I hope you all support the attached policy language for publication and implementation. Gratefully your, Dennis Chang From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>> Reply-To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:40 AM To: "irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>" <irt.regdatapolicy(a)icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] RegData IRT Good News. Urgent Request requirement. IRT supported solution found! Dear IRT, If you haven't heard already, we did it! We found a solution to Urgent Request supported by IRT at our 90 minutes focused working session this week. Thank you so much for not giving up and working as a team to find this solution. It was impressive to see people still listening to one another, appreciating the different views, and truly collaborating to build on ideas to find the compromised solution. A great demonstration of One Team against the problem. What was that solution? * 24 hours. Respond in 24 hours with the info or an explanation for more time needed. * 2 Business Days. No more than 2 Business Days to Respond. How did this happen? First, thanks to Roger and RrSG for the planting the seed with using both 24 hours and 2 business days in the solution. Instead of outright rejecting it, Laureen and others suggested that we build on it. Thomas came in with a key ingredient - the explanation. Initially, we discussed all the options but created this new one listening to the "interest" behind the positions. Business Days was important because of the business realities in various regions around the world. While Calendar Days sets global time consistency, the team agreed that cultural sensitivity to regions was more important. The dread of "silence" with undetermined timeline using "Business Days" was solved with the promise of a response in 24 hours with an explanation. Thanks to Gabriel expressing the "dread" so eloquently. Overall, it was an exciting finale overcoming the toughest challenge for us. As promised, we'll draft the policy language using the IRT supported requirements and comeback to you, but I wanted to send you this quick note to express my sincere gratitude for wonderfully responding. I thank those guests that joined to support us too. I noted Ashley, RrSG Chair and Becky, ICANN Board and others supporting us behind the scenes. Please convey our sincere appreciation to your team back home too. THANK YOU! Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang www.icann.org<https://usg02.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann…> One World - One Internet

1 0

Post Call | Registration Data Policy IRT | Wednesday, 19 July 2023
by Andrea Glandon 24 Jul '23

24 Jul '23

Dear all, All recordings for the Registration Data Policy IRT call held on Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 17:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page (<https://community.icann.org/x/xYbxDg>attendance included). These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/hpaGBg>. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0