<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
James, you had earlier suggested that we remove fields such as admin contact and even tech contact. Can you explain how you proposed to address cases where the registrant had unique contents for those fields requiring the registrar to decide which one to use
in the new merged fields. Or would you unilaterally just pick the values that were to be in the new RDS field(s). Perhaps how you planned to address that would help us understand how we might handle this case.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 05/11/2018 05:57 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Correct, Matt. I presume there would be -some- consequence for registrant inaction? If not, then it’s an Honor System.
<br>
<br>
Or in this case, the default “punishment” would probably be redaction from WHOIS/RDS, because the registrar couldn’t leave the classification to chance.
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------<br>
James Bladel<br>
GoDaddy<br>
<hr>
<font face="Calibri"><b>From:</b> Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 5, 2018 4:53:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg; James M. Bladel; Mark Svancarek (CELA); gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2</font>
<br>
<br>
Alan – you 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>
<br>
<dl><dd>Mark –<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Shortly following the launch of the 2013 RAA’s requirements 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
positivesâ€<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Here’s some coverage of that data at the time.<br>
</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>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>It’s this experience that causes Contracted Parties (but particularly Registrars) to be skeptical of any requirement to just “send an email†or “have the Registrant check a box.†It doesn’t scale.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>J.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>-------------<br>
</dd><dd>James Bladel<br>
</dd><dd>GoDaddy<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv@microsoft.com><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 15:14<br>
</dd><dd>To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: RE: Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>James, can you clarify this:<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>“many of whom could lose access to their registrations.â€<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:57<br>
</dd><dd>To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contracted Parties and Small Teams #1 and #2<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>ePDP Colleagues and WG Leadership -<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</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. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Our concerns involve:<br>
</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 Registrar and Registry contracts. </dd><dd> <br>
</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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Thank you,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>J.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>-------------<br>
</dd><dd>James Bladel<br>
</dd><dd>GoDaddy<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
</dd><dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a><br>
</dd></dl>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>