Dennis and IRT / IPT members, As I understand it, the only change to the URS procedure post public comments, is to add a footnote to section 4.2. The footnote, as you capture in your email below explains that the term “Registration Data” is defined in the Registration Data Policy. For reference that term is defined in section 3.6: 3.6. "Registration Data" means the data element values collected from a natural or legal person or generated by Registrar or Registry Operator, in either case in connection with a Registered Name in accordance with Section 6 of this Policy. So basically Registration Data means the data elements that the registrar or registry operator MAY and MUST collect per section 6 of the Registration Data policy. I think this additional footnote makes sense. It sets expectations for what the Registration Data is based on the obligations in the Registration Data Policy. Good clarification. Logistically within the document, I wonder why the footnote was applied against the “Registration Data” in section 4.2. That same term is used three times in section 4.1 immediately above it. It seems like it would be better to apply the footnote to the first use of “Registration Data” in section 4.1. Section 4.1 isn’t the first use of the term “Registration Data”. That happens in section 3.4. It would be kind of awkward to apply the footnote to the language in that section. That language comes very specifically from recommendation #23. That language in Rec #23 doesn’t capitalize “registration data”, and it might make sense to keep it in lowercase in the URS procedure as well. The meaning of registration data in that sentence is clear as it’s talking specifically about the data publicly available in RDDS and doesn’t need to be further defined. Either way, my suggestion is to move the new footnote from the “Registration Data” found in section 4.2 to the first one in section 4.1. Otherwise no other feedback on this task. Best, Marc From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:45 PM To: Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IRT.RegDataPolicy] IRT Task 240 Review URS Procedure update - add one footnote in Section 4.2 due 20230522 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear IRT, 240 Review URS Procedure update - add one footnote in Section 4.2 20230522 A footnote was added in Section 4.2. The term “Registration Data” as used in this policy SHALL have the meaning given to it in the Registration Data Policy [add link] The Link will be filled in when we publish the policy. -- Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Programs Director Phone: +1 213 293 7889 Sykpe: dennisSchang <http://secure-web.cisco.com/13pcO2-L0CkcdVezm0cYIGJ3podYThMM0SXaq27CEtqGVVFp...> www.icann.org One World – One Internet