[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [ALAC] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report

Bastiaan Goslings bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
Fri Feb 15 07:45:05 UTC 2019


Thanks - I cannot join this evening’s (CET) CPWG call and therefore want to express my support for the statement. If it comes to a vote during the call then please include my explicit endorsement.


Just a comment, and if not relevant then ignore, but I took the final report from 11 February that was sent to the GNSO council on the 12th as a reference to see what our concerns apply to. I am somewhat confused:


- Rec#16 states ‘that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.’

Our response says ‘The report recommends that contracted parties will not need to perform any level of geographic differentiation due to the difficulty of determining the location of the registrant.’

I cannot find that argument (‘due to’) in the draft final report. However rec#5 requires registrars to a.o. collect address- incl country data from registrants.  So on the one hand hand the data are collected and (should be) accurate, and on the other it is ‘difficult’ to ‘determine the location of the registrant’?


- Rec#5 lists the ‘data elements to be collected where some data elements are automatically generated and, as indicated below, in some cases it is optional for the registered name holder to provide those data elements.

The ‘tech fields’ (name, phone and email) in the ‘data elements’ table are not ‘indicated’ as being ‘optional’. Like for instance the ‘organization’ and ‘fax’ fields of the ‘registrant’ (= ‘opt.’) . Then there is a note ‘For the purpose of the Technical contact, which is optional for the Registered Name Holder to complete (and if the Registrar provides this option)’.  Etc. Why are the technical contact data elements not labeled in the table as being ‘(opt.)’?


thanks again, with regards
Bastiaan




***  Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***




> On 15 Feb 2019, at 04:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Alan
> 
> I think you have captured the outcomes of the CPWG discussions very well.  I am happy with this statement and have no further comments
> 
> Holly
> 
>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report.
>> 
>> I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns.
>> 
>> The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues.
>> 
>> THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency.
>> 
>> Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline.
>> 
>> WORD and PDF formats are attached.
>> 
>> Alan
>> <ALAC-Statement-v01.docx><ALAC-Statement-v01.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190215/bcc57057/signature-0001.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list