<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Marc and all, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for taking the time to discuss offline, Marc. Yes, the “also” is the primary concern. We should also change the “MAY” to a “may” as it is informative language describing the behavior of another policy; it is not defining normative
requirements/obligations of implementers of the Phase 2 policy. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We withdraw our “cannot live with” if we can make these two minor updates, which are hopefully not controversial. Thanks all. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">Brian J. King
</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> <br>
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">T +1 443 761 3726</span><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#0563C1"><a href="http://www.markmonitor.com"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#0563C1"><br>
</span><span style="color:#0563C1">markmonitor.com</span></a></span></u><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">MarkMonitor<br>
</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 24, 2020 3:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-epdp-team] Minor edits - Rec #20 - email discussion<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As time is short, I want to try and cover this via email. The first minor edit proposed by the BC is this:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:24.25pt">
<td valign="top" style="border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height:24.25pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Page 9 (223-224)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:24.25pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">IPC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:24.25pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">As a friendly amendment, the final sentence doesn’t seem to add anything but confusion. P/P providers do not need the EPDP’s permission to use a pseudonumized email address. The word “also” is
particularly problematic as it could be interpreted as “in addition to the RDDS data” (mentioned in the preceding sentence). We think this recommendation is clearer with this sentence removed. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt;height:24.25pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Friendly amendment: for clarity, strike final sentence in this recommendation. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think the last sentence is important to have, clarifying that a pseudonymized email may be provided in the response. I understand this is a practice among some P/P providers. Similar language was used in the original phase 1 recommendation#
14 that this is intended to replace.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is the word “also” the main problem… could concerns be addressed by just removing that word?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Marc<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>