Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that*this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team*, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr
On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input.
That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May.
Thanks,
Sarah
-- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
<signature.asc>
I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc>
Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc>
Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc>
yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote:
Is everyone piled on?
Ok then, let the fun being on 28.
Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority.
It was for me if you think about it.
It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT.
Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion.
I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team.
I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned.
So, one more pre-IRT homework.
Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
*From: *"RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM *To: *"Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> *Cc: *"regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Just piling on. I agree!
*From:* RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Plaut, Diane *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM *To:* Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> *Cc:* regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority.
Best, Diane
*Diane Plaut*
General Counsel and Privacy Officer
cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40
Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com <mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com>
220 West 42^nd Street, 11^th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com <http://www.corsearch.com/>
Join Corsearch on Twitter <https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands <http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/>
Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com <mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com>
*Confidentiality Notice:*This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.
*From: *"RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> *Reply-To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM *To: *Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> *Cc: *"regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi,
Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input.
That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that*this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team*, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May.
Thanks,
Sarah
--
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
<signature.asc>
_______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol... We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Hi, To get the process started, I’ve put some proposed text in to the spreadsheet in the “pre-IRT Comment” column for recommendation 28. I hope we can at least use it as a basis for consideration of what the language might end up looking like. I do believe it is consistent with what is in the “REQUIREMENTs” column (except for 28.3, which isn’t necessary to reflect in the Consensus Policy). So at a minimum, can be considered an “agree” on what’s in the “REQUIREMENTs” column. Thanks. Amr
On Apr 25, 2019, at 7:05 AM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions.
We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed.
Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki
https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol...
We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi Dennis,
I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place?
I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec.
Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier.
Regards,
Matt
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Right!
Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now.
Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis.
28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right?
Best,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V.
Ceintuurbaan 32A
8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands
T: +31.384530759
F: +31.384524734
U: [www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...)
E: legal@realtimeregister.com
On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote:
Is everyone piled on?
Ok then, let the fun being on 28.
Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority.
It was for me if you think about it.
It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT.
Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion.
I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team.
I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned.
So, one more pre-IRT homework.
Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" [<regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org) on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon [<beth@pir.org>](mailto:beth@pir.org) Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" [<Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>](mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com), Amr Elsadr [<aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>](mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja), Sarah Wyld [<swyld@tucows.com>](mailto:swyld@tucows.com) Cc: ["regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org) [<regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org) Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Just piling on. I agree!
From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT [<regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org) On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr [<aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>](mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja); Sarah Wyld [<swyld@tucows.com>](mailto:swyld@tucows.com) Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority.
Best, Diane
Diane Plaut
General Counsel and Privacy Officer
<image001.png>
Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com
220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States [www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...)
Join Corsearch on [Twitter [twitter.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...) [Linkedin [linkedin.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...) [Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...)
Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com
Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi,
Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input.
That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May.
Thanks,
Sarah
--
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
<signature.asc>
_______________________________________________
RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list
RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org
Hi again, For easy access (and for observers, I guess), I’ve pasted the proposed text below: “The effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be [February 29, 2020]. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. Until such date [February 29, 2020], ICANN [Compliance] directs Contracted Parties that registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with the [policy resulting from] the recommendations contained in the Final Report OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020. Failure to respond within 30 days of this notice shall be considered acceptance of the terms herein will be considered acceptance.” Thanks again. Amr
On Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi,
To get the process started, I’ve put some proposed text in to the spreadsheet in the “pre-IRT Comment” column for recommendation 28. I hope we can at least use it as a basis for consideration of what the language might end up looking like.
I do believe it is consistent with what is in the “REQUIREMENTs” column (except for 28.3, which isn’t necessary to reflect in the Consensus Policy). So at a minimum, can be considered an “agree” on what’s in the “REQUIREMENTs” column.
Thanks.
Amr
On Apr 25, 2019, at 7:05 AM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions.
We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed.
Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki
https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol...
We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi Dennis,
I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place?
I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec.
Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier.
Regards,
Matt
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Right!
Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now.
Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis.
28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right?
Best,
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V.
Ceintuurbaan 32A
8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands
T: +31.384530759
F: +31.384524734
U: [www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...)
E: legal@realtimeregister.com
On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote:
Is everyone piled on?
Ok then, let the fun being on 28.
Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority.
It was for me if you think about it.
It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT.
Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion.
I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team.
I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned.
So, one more pre-IRT homework.
Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" [<regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org) on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon [<beth@pir.org>](mailto:beth@pir.org) Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" [<Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>](mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com), Amr Elsadr [<aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>](mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja), Sarah Wyld [<swyld@tucows.com>](mailto:swyld@tucows.com) Cc: ["regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org) [<regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org) Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Just piling on. I agree!
From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT [<regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>](mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org) On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr [<aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>](mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja); Sarah Wyld [<swyld@tucows.com>](mailto:swyld@tucows.com) Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority.
Best, Diane
Diane Plaut
General Counsel and Privacy Officer
<image001.png>
Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com
220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States [www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...)
Join Corsearch on [Twitter [twitter.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...) [Linkedin [linkedin.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...) [Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...)
Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com
Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi,
Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input.
That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May.
Thanks,
Sarah
--
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
<signature.asc>
_______________________________________________
RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list
RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org
Thanks Amr. Much appreciated. FYI. the IPT is drafting the policy language and will share with the pre-IRT soon. As you’ve suggested, we will not wait till the Board resolution but proceeding in advance. Thanks for your support! Dennis Chang From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:09 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi again, For easy access (and for observers, I guess), I’ve pasted the proposed text below: “The effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be [February 29, 2020]. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. Until such date [February 29, 2020], ICANN [Compliance] directs Contracted Parties that registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with the [policy resulting from] the recommendations contained in the Final Report OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020. Failure to respond within 30 days of this notice shall be considered acceptance of the terms herein will be considered acceptance.” Thanks again. Amr On Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, To get the process started, I’ve put some proposed text in to the spreadsheet in the “pre-IRT Comment” column for recommendation 28. I hope we can at least use it as a basis for consideration of what the language might end up looking like. I do believe it is consistent with what is in the “REQUIREMENTs” column (except for 28.3, which isn’t necessary to reflect in the Consensus Policy). So at a minimum, can be considered an “agree” on what’s in the “REQUIREMENTs” column. Thanks. Amr On Apr 25, 2019, at 7:05 AM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol... We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com<mailto:matt@brandsight.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org<mailto:beth@pir.org>>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org<mailto:beth@pir.org>>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org<mailto:beth@pir.org>>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer <image001.png> Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
This looks great, Amr. Thank you. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy & Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com<mailto:brian.king@markmonitor.com> From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:17 AM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Thanks Amr. Much appreciated. FYI. the IPT is drafting the policy language and will share with the pre-IRT soon. As you’ve suggested, we will not wait till the Board resolution but proceeding in advance. Thanks for your support! Dennis Chang From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:09 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi again, For easy access (and for observers, I guess), I’ve pasted the proposed text below: “The effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be [February 29, 2020]. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. Until such date [February 29, 2020], ICANN [Compliance] directs Contracted Parties that registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with the [policy resulting from] the recommendations contained in the Final Report OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020. Failure to respond within 30 days of this notice shall be considered acceptance of the terms herein will be considered acceptance.” Thanks again. Amr On Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, To get the process started, I’ve put some proposed text in to the spreadsheet in the “pre-IRT Comment” column for recommendation 28. I hope we can at least use it as a basis for consideration of what the language might end up looking like. I do believe it is consistent with what is in the “REQUIREMENTs” column (except for 28.3, which isn’t necessary to reflect in the Consensus Policy). So at a minimum, can be considered an “agree” on what’s in the “REQUIREMENTs” column. Thanks. Amr On Apr 25, 2019, at 7:05 AM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Policy+Implementation+-+pre-IRT+Meeting<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RDPIPRP_2019-2D04-2D24-2BRegistration-2BData-2BPolicy-2BImplementation-2B-2D-2Bpre-2DIRT-2BMeeting&d=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=sytL7OxiBlcc-s0mCTyzkSqgSOA0C7dCU4nhf85MUI4&s=0UfB84rKq830Xk6LFIzVg0n-aR3Z2v-uptrpURKHV-Q&e=> We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com<mailto:matt@brandsight.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org<mailto:beth@pir.org>>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org<mailto:beth@pir.org>>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org<mailto:beth@pir.org>>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer <image001.png> Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_regdatapolicy.preirt&d=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=sytL7OxiBlcc-s0mCTyzkSqgSOA0C7dCU4nhf85MUI4&s=Tjefu_mUINV7fAn5MTI_KqWnkw0wXmEYnCiycFrUih0&e=>
Hi Dennis, Thanks for that…my understanding is that language is being drafted for the “bridging mechanism” we are all focused on at this point…recommendation 28 to be clear. When can we expect to see language for this? I know GDD is upcoming and that will be a good opportunity for some members to collaborate on that, but I know many of the pre-IRT participants won’t be attending so I’d suggest we receive language ahead of GDD if at all possible. Thank you in advance. Regards, Matt From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:06 PM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol... We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Hi Matt, Understood and we accept your suggestion. We’ll do our best to get is to you prior to the GDD Summit. In the meanwhile, Rec 28 has been moved to the top of the pre-IRT workbook and available for you to add your comment. Do you agree with the IPT’s requirements analysis and the actions we are and plan to take in the future? Let’s continue to share and let our efforts align. To be dear, we are looking for pre-IRT comment on cell E2 in the workbook: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QwOX2REPyB7klhd1MGr_gwYyK1mNzPy87eua... Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 9:19 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, Thanks for that…my understanding is that language is being drafted for the “bridging mechanism” we are all focused on at this point…recommendation 28 to be clear. When can we expect to see language for this? I know GDD is upcoming and that will be a good opportunity for some members to collaborate on that, but I know many of the pre-IRT participants won’t be attending so I’d suggest we receive language ahead of GDD if at all possible. Thank you in advance. Regards, Matt From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:06 PM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol... We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Hi Dennis and team, Hope everyone had a good weekend! So regard to the below, I have reviewed the spreadsheet and generally am in agreement with what you have outlined. My only concern is the specific mechanism by which this “bridging mechanism” will be implemented. Again, the goal of what was included in the Final Report was specifically NOT to be a policy but rather the continued obligation of contracted parties to what is currently documented in the Temp. Spec. I fully appreciate and understand this is completely outside the “normal” process here as we have never been presented this situation. It is for that reason that I continue to worry about the timing of this as the Temp. Spec will be expiring in less than a month at this point so we really do need to sort this out in short order. Thanks Dennis! Regards, Matt From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:42 AM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Matt, Understood and we accept your suggestion. We’ll do our best to get is to you prior to the GDD Summit. In the meanwhile, Rec 28 has been moved to the top of the pre-IRT workbook and available for you to add your comment. Do you agree with the IPT’s requirements analysis and the actions we are and plan to take in the future? Let’s continue to share and let our efforts align. To be dear, we are looking for pre-IRT comment on cell E2 in the workbook: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QwOX2REPyB7klhd1MGr_gwYyK1mNzPy87eua... Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 9:19 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, Thanks for that…my understanding is that language is being drafted for the “bridging mechanism” we are all focused on at this point…recommendation 28 to be clear. When can we expect to see language for this? I know GDD is upcoming and that will be a good opportunity for some members to collaborate on that, but I know many of the pre-IRT participants won’t be attending so I’d suggest we receive language ahead of GDD if at all possible. Thank you in advance. Regards, Matt From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:06 PM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol... We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Hi Matt and team, Your point is well taken and considered. It is in fact the same questions we asked ourselves and have discussed with some on the EPDP Team, Please note the email I just sent out for the draft Interim RegDataPolicy which provides explanations to your questions. I decided to start a new fresh email trail to focus on what we calling now the interim policy. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:04 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis and team, Hope everyone had a good weekend! So regard to the below, I have reviewed the spreadsheet and generally am in agreement with what you have outlined. My only concern is the specific mechanism by which this “bridging mechanism” will be implemented. Again, the goal of what was included in the Final Report was specifically NOT to be a policy but rather the continued obligation of contracted parties to what is currently documented in the Temp. Spec. I fully appreciate and understand this is completely outside the “normal” process here as we have never been presented this situation. It is for that reason that I continue to worry about the timing of this as the Temp. Spec will be expiring in less than a month at this point so we really do need to sort this out in short order. Thanks Dennis! Regards, Matt From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:42 AM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Matt, Understood and we accept your suggestion. We’ll do our best to get is to you prior to the GDD Summit. In the meanwhile, Rec 28 has been moved to the top of the pre-IRT workbook and available for you to add your comment. Do you agree with the IPT’s requirements analysis and the actions we are and plan to take in the future? Let’s continue to share and let our efforts align. To be dear, we are looking for pre-IRT comment on cell E2 in the workbook: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QwOX2REPyB7klhd1MGr_gwYyK1mNzPy87eua... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 9:19 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, Thanks for that…my understanding is that language is being drafted for the “bridging mechanism” we are all focused on at this point…recommendation 28 to be clear. When can we expect to see language for this? I know GDD is upcoming and that will be a good opportunity for some members to collaborate on that, but I know many of the pre-IRT participants won’t be attending so I’d suggest we receive language ahead of GDD if at all possible. Thank you in advance. Regards, Matt From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:06 PM To: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Matt, Yes, you are spot on with your assessment and thanks for the suggestions. We will indeed be working using this email list and pull together an earlier meeting if needed. Please do view the recorded meeting posted now on the pre-IRT wiki https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/2019-04-24+Registration+Data+Pol... We’ve reviewed a couple of recommendations and used a workbook tool to document. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi Dennis, I’m concerned that our next call is May 15 and the Temp. Spec. expires just days after that…doesn’t give a lot of time for us to get this completed. What are the specific steps that need to happen for this “bridging mechanism” to be finalized and in place? I’d suggest either we look to have a call prior to that or use the mailing list to ensure we are in a good place to have something locked in prior to the expiration of the Temp. Spec. Again, wasn’t on the call today so apologies if this was already discussed earlier. Regards, Matt From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] [Ext] Re: Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Right! Please do review it before our next meeting (homework) since we are implementing this one now. Write in your comment that you agree with the IPT’s analysis if you do. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org>, "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review yeah I think we are all on the same page here Dennis. 28, first thing on the agenda for the next call, right? Best, Theo Geurts CIPP/E Contractual Compliance & Privacy Officer | Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com [realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> On 24-4-2019 22:05, Dennis Chang wrote: Is everyone piled on? Ok then, let the fun being on 28. Glad to hear you all agree that Rec 28 is a priority. It was for me if you think about it. It had to be for me to pulled together the implementation team: IPT and pre-IRT. Without it we wouldn’t have this email group to be having the discussion. I am very happy to see such an enthusiastic and engaging team. I can feel that we are jelling as a team – becoming well aligned. So, one more pre-IRT homework. Check your workbook and add your comment to Rec 28. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Elizabeth Bacon <beth@pir.org><mailto:beth@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM To: "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com><mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org"<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Just piling on. I agree! From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org><mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Plaut, Diane Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja><mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com><mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com [corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.corsearch.com_&d=DwM...> Join Corsearch on Twitter [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_corsearch&d...> Linkedin [linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan...> Trademarks + Brands [trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trademarksandbrands.cors...> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc> _______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org<mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
Apologies as I wasn’t able to join the call today but would like to just echo what Sarah has indicated below that Rec. 28 seems to be the most critical at this juncture with the Temp Spec expiring in a matter of weeks. Regards, Matt. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc>
Dennis / IRT members, I want to add in my plus 1 to this as well. It is not a coincidence that the recommendation to have a pre-IRT is in the second half of rec #28. When considering having a bridging mechanism the working group knew there would not be enough time to draft and implement the new policy recommendations by the time the temporary specification expired. The working group also knew that there would be very little time between when the board could realistically approve the policy recommendations and when the temporary specification expired. That led to the language in the second half of Rec #28 calling for a pre-IRT. (For ease of reference, I’m including the entire ePDP Recommendation #28 language below.) I think the implementation timeline outlined on slide 8 (attached) correctly identifies two deliverables for the IPT/IRT. By the time the temporary policy expires on May 20th, there needs to be a bridging mechanism in place as outlined in recommendations #28. This is the first deliverable. This should also be the focus of the pre-IRT. As discussed on today’s call, to the extent possible, the IPT should be drafting that language now and looking to the IRT members for clarification and assistance in that drafting. Also as discussed on today’s call, I recognize that there may not be enough time for a traditional public comment period (as is typical before publishing final policy language) but the IRT members should be leveraged to review that language prior to it being published. The second deliverable is the policy language for the remainder of the phase 1 policy recommendations. As has been discussed, this would ideally be delivered at least 180 days before the 29 February 2020 effective date from recommendation 28. While I have no concerns with the pre-IRT considering/working on this second deliverable, this should really only be done after the much more time sensitive bridging mechanism deliverable has been addressed. Best, Marc EPDP Team Recommendation #28. The EPDP Team recommends that the effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be February 29, 2020. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. The EPDP Team recommends that until February 29, 2020, registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with this gTLD Registration Data Policy OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020. The EPDP Team furthermore recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the GNSO Council and ICANN Org, informally convene the Implementation Review Team to allow for the necessary planning to take place before ICANN Board consideration of this Final Report, following which the IRT would be formally convened. From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Matt Serlin Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:17 PM To: Plaut, Diane <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>; Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Apologies as I wasn’t able to join the call today but would like to just echo what Sarah has indicated below that Rec. 28 seems to be the most critical at this juncture with the Temp Spec expiring in a matter of weeks. Regards, Matt. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority. Best, Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org<mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review Hi, Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May. Thanks again. Amr On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. Thanks, Sarah -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 <signature.asc>
Agreed Marc. And +1 for Sarah and Amr. Theo Geurts CIPP/E On 24-4-2019 21:24, Anderson, Marc via RegDataPolicy.PreIRT wrote:
Dennis / IRT members,
I want to add in my plus 1 to this as well. It is not a coincidence that the recommendation to have a pre-IRT is in the second half of rec #28. When considering having a bridging mechanism the working group knew there would not be enough time to draft and implement the new policy recommendations by the time the temporary specification expired. The working group also knew that there would be very little time between when the board could realistically approve the policy recommendations and when the temporary specification expired. That led to the language in the second half of Rec #28 calling for a pre-IRT. (For ease of reference, I’m including the entire ePDP Recommendation #28 language below.)
I think the implementation timeline outlined on slide 8 (attached) correctly identifies two deliverables for the IPT/IRT. By the time the temporary policy expires on May 20^th , there needs to be a bridging mechanism in place as outlined in recommendations #28. This is the first deliverable. This should also be the focus of the pre-IRT. As discussed on today’s call, to the extent possible, the IPT should be drafting that language now and looking to the IRT members for clarification and assistance in that drafting. Also as discussed on today’s call, I recognize that there may not be enough time for a traditional public comment period (as is typical before publishing final policy language) but the IRT members should be leveraged to review that language prior to it being published.
The second deliverable is the policy language for the remainder of the phase 1 policy recommendations. As has been discussed, this would ideally be delivered at least 180 days before the 29 February 2020 effective date from recommendation 28. While I have no concerns with the pre-IRT considering/working on this second deliverable, this should really only be done after the much more time sensitive bridging mechanism deliverable has been addressed.
Best,
Marc
*EPDP Team Recommendation #28.*
The EPDP Team recommends that the effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be February 29, 2020. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. The EPDP Team recommends that until February 29, 2020, registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with this gTLD Registration Data Policy OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020.
The EPDP Team furthermore recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the GNSO Council and ICANN Org, informally convene the Implementation Review Team to allow for the necessary planning to take place before ICANN Board consideration of this Final Report, following which the IRT would be formally convened.
*From:* RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Matt Serlin *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:17 PM *To:* Plaut, Diane <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>; Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> *Cc:* regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Apologies as I wasn’t able to join the call today but would like to just echo what Sarah has indicated below that Rec. 28 seems to be the most critical at this juncture with the Temp Spec expiring in a matter of weeks.
Regards,
Matt.
*From: *"RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com <mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:03 PM *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> *Cc: *"regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority.
Best, Diane
*Diane Plaut*
General Counsel and Privacy Officer
cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40
Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com <mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com>
220 West 42^nd Street, 11^th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com <http://www.corsearch.com/>
Join Corsearch on Twitter <https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands <http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/>
Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com <mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com>
*Confidentiality Notice:*This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.
*From: *"RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> *Reply-To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM *To: *Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> *Cc: *"regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi,
Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input.
That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that*this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team*, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May.
Thanks,
Sarah
--
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
<signature.asc>
_______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt
+1 to the comments of Marc, Sarah, and Amr.
On Apr 24, 2019, at 12:33 PM, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Agreed Marc.
And +1 for Sarah and Amr.
Theo Geurts CIPP/E
On 24-4-2019 21:24, Anderson, Marc via RegDataPolicy.PreIRT wrote:
Dennis / IRT members,
I want to add in my plus 1 to this as well. It is not a coincidence that the recommendation to have a pre-IRT is in the second half of rec #28. When considering having a bridging mechanism the working group knew there would not be enough time to draft and implement the new policy recommendations by the time the temporary specification expired. The working group also knew that there would be very little time between when the board could realistically approve the policy recommendations and when the temporary specification expired. That led to the language in the second half of Rec #28 calling for a pre-IRT. (For ease of reference, I’m including the entire ePDP Recommendation #28 language below.)
I think the implementation timeline outlined on slide 8 (attached) correctly identifies two deliverables for the IPT/IRT. By the time the temporary policy expires on May 20th, there needs to be a bridging mechanism in place as outlined in recommendations #28. This is the first deliverable. This should also be the focus of the pre-IRT. As discussed on today’s call, to the extent possible, the IPT should be drafting that language now and looking to the IRT members for clarification and assistance in that drafting. Also as discussed on today’s call, I recognize that there may not be enough time for a traditional public comment period (as is typical before publishing final policy language) but the IRT members should be leveraged to review that language prior to it being published.
The second deliverable is the policy language for the remainder of the phase 1 policy recommendations. As has been discussed, this would ideally be delivered at least 180 days before the 29 February 2020 effective date from recommendation 28. While I have no concerns with the pre-IRT considering/working on this second deliverable, this should really only be done after the much more time sensitive bridging mechanism deliverable has been addressed.
Best, Marc
EPDP Team Recommendation #28. The EPDP Team recommends that the effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be February 29, 2020. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. The EPDP Team recommends that until February 29, 2020, registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with this gTLD Registration Data Policy OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020.
The EPDP Team furthermore recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the GNSO Council and ICANN Org, informally convene the Implementation Review Team to allow for the necessary planning to take place before ICANN Board consideration of this Final Report, following which the IRT would be formally convened.
From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Matt Serlin Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:17 PM To: Plaut, Diane <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com> <mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>; Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> <mailto:swyld@tucows.com> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Apologies as I wasn’t able to join the call today but would like to just echo what Sarah has indicated below that Rec. 28 seems to be the most critical at this juncture with the Temp Spec expiring in a matter of weeks.
Regards, Matt.
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com <mailto:Diane.Plaut@corsearch.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority.
Best, Diane
Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer <image002.png> Direct +1 646-899-2806 >> diane.plaut@corsearch.com <mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States >> www.corsearch.com <http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter <https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands <http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) >> Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com <mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com>
Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.
From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
Hi,
Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com <mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote:
Hello, Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input.
That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May.
Thanks,
Sarah
-- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
<signature.asc>
_______________________________________________ RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org <mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt>
RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org <mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt>
participants (10)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Anderson, Marc -
Dennis Chang -
Elizabeth Bacon -
King, Brian -
Matt Serlin -
Owen Smigelski -
Plaut, Diane -
Sarah Wyld -
theo geurts