<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
Matt, you asked that question once, suggesting that perhaps revocation would be that solution and I answered - without including a revocation or suspension result.
<br>
<br>
You may not like my suggestion but please don't put words in my mouth.<br>
<br>
**NOTE** I just realized that my message went only to you, so apologies to others. I will forward to the list.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 05/11/2018 05:53 PM, Matt Serlin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Alan – yoou called for having a “hard deadline†for existing registrants to make this determination so the logical next step would be some sort of impact to the domain name registration in cases where there was
no response, correct?<br>
<br>
Any suggestion of a policy recommendation that results in registrants potentially having their domain name suspended or worse should be considered very carefully and have majority support within the group…something which I don’t believe would be the case
here.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b>Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, November 5, 2018 at 3:49 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv@microsoft.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2<br>
<br>
James, the Whois Verification in the 2013 RAA called for domains to be suspended in some circumstances (as you have just described). What provisions have been discussed in the EPDP that would similarly require suspension?<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 05/11/2018 04:28 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:<br>
<br>
<dl><dd>Mark – </dd><dd>Shortly folllowing the launch of the 2013 RAA’s requirements fs for WHOIS Verification, registrars noted that approx. 800,000 domains had been suspended in the first few months. The number continued to climb for a few years, and most were categorized
as “false positives†</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Here’s some coverage of that data at at the time. </dd><dd><a href="https://domainnamewire.com/2014/06/24/over-800000-domain-names-suspended-due-to-2013-raa/">https://domainnamewire.com/2014/06/24/over-800000-domain-names-suspended-due-to-2013-raa/</a>
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Any program that depends on Registrant self-categorization, self-declaration, or receipt & acting upon a notice has a huge error factor. For GoDaddy in 2014, the RAA verification rate was in the high 70% or low 80%, meaning that service to tens of thousands
of customers was delayed or disrupted. </dd><dd> </dd><dd>It’s thithis experience that causes Contracted Parties (but particularly Registrars) to be skeptical of any requirement to just “send an email†or “have the Regthe Registrant check a box.†It doesn’t s„˘t scale.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>J. </dd><dd> </dd><dd> </dd><dd>------------- </dd><dd>James Bladel </dd><dd>GoDaddy </dd><dd> </dd><dd> </dd><dd>From: "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv@microsoft.com> </dd><dd>Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 15:14 </dd><dd>To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>
</dd><dd>Subject: RE: Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2 </dd><dd> </dd><dd>James, can you clarify this: </dd><dd> </dd><dd>“many of whom could l lose access to their registrations.†</dd><dd>From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
</dd><dd>Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:57 </dd><dd>To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org </dd><dd>Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2 </dd><dd> </dd><dd>ePDP Colleagues and WG Leadership - </dd><dd> </dd><dd>This morning, Registry and Registrar representatives met to discuss the status of potential recommendations from Small Group #1 (Legal vs. Natural) and Small Group #2 (Geographic Regions) in our Draft Initial Report.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>We concluded that there are some legal bases supporting these distinctions under GDPR and other data protection laws, and note that our Initial Report supports this. However, we reiterate our numerous high-level concerns against making any Consensus Policy
recommendations for contractual requirements in these areas. </dd><dd> </dd><dd>Our concerns involve: </dd><dd> </dd><dd>Legal - Aside from GDPR, other data protection laws are less clear on the distinction between legal and natural persons. Future regulations may contain contrary requirements. Furthermore, data of legal entities may contain or consist of personal information
of natural persons, which would be entitled to protection under the GDPR and similar data protection regimes. Likewise, the geographic distinctions also create uncertainties.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Technical - Contracted Parties are uniquely situated to assess the current level of the technological means available to us, and it is our stated position that a technical basis to reliably and confidently make such a distinction does not exist. Especially
because any distinction schema would be dependent upon Registrant Self-Identification, which is fraught with error.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Commercial - Developing and deploying this technology will involve significant costs, which may be prohibitive for smaller organizations and a barrier to market entry. Regardless of whether the distinction(s) are applied to new registrations or legacy
domain names, it would be a logistical nightmare for Contracted Parties, and a source of confusion for Registrants, many of whom could lose access to their registrations.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Asymmetrical Risks vs. Benefits - Contracted Parties would assume all regulatory risks of such an obligations, exclusively for the benefit of unburdened third parties.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Scope - The distinction between Legal and Natural persons, or geographic regions, does not currently exist in the Domain Name System. Therefore, any recommendation mandating this change is outside the scope of the ePDP, and possibly the “picket fenceâ€
of Rof Registrar and Registry contracts. </dd><dd> </dd><dd>As a result, and for the avoidance of doubt, Contracted Parties oppose/reject any recommendations for new contractual requirements in the ePDP Draft Initial Report, and will remain opposed to these recommendations as we move towards final recommendations.
</dd><dd> </dd><dd>Thank you, </dd><dd> </dd><dd>J. </dd><dd> </dd><dd>------------- </dd><dd>James Bladel </dd><dd>GoDaddy </dd><dd> </dd><dd>_______________________________________________ </dd><dd>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list </dd><dd>Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org </dd><dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a>
</dd></dl>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>