[council] Call for Volunteers: Council EPDP Rec. 12 Board Response
caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
Mon Jan 4 16:27:38 UTC 2021
SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP
Happy 2021 to all!
As the Council did not have time to cover this item during its December meeting, we are writing to seek volunteers to assist in drafting a response to the Board’s recent letter regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-11dec20-en.pdf>. Note: as the clarification is related to the data retention practices of Contracted Parties, we are specifically looking for CPH volunteers; however, all are welcome to assist.
On 19 December 2019, the GNSO Council adopted of a Supplemental Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201912>, which amended the text of EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12 to state that "prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information." The GNSO Chair notified<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-to-botterman-23dec19-en.pdf> the ICANN Board of the supplemental recommendation on 23 December 2019, and the ICANN Board acknowledged receipt of the supplemental recommendation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-drazek-03feb20-en.pdf> on 3 February 2020.
Following review of the supplemental recommendation, the Board identified some questions for the GNSO Council. During the GNSO Council’s meeting with the Board at ICANN69, the Board referenced a concern with deleted information, observing, for example, “a situation where for some reason, the registrant is listed as domain administrator and the organization is listed as ICANN, but you can't confirm the organization. So that field drops away and the registrar has the ability to actually delete that information entirely.” The GNSO Council, after having received this question, requested the Board to provide the example in writing so that the Council could properly address the concern.
Within its follow-up letter, the Board additionally noted the below example, where deletion of the organization field data would result in the loss of such identifying information:
Domain name: icann.org
Registrant: Domain Administrator
Noting this, the Board posed the question: “Even if you can contact the domain administrator, how do you avoid a situation where essentially the registration has been transferred or on paper it looks like it's been transferred from ICANN, the organization, to an individual?”
The Supplemental Recommendation provides that a registrar must first “ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information” before “eliminating the Organization contact fields.” Given the Board’s understanding that the data need not be published in this instance, the concern is that the data be retained in some manner rather than deleted. That is, a registrar may delete data in organization fields from its registration data records (WHOIS records), but must retain it elsewhere, e.g., in a separate customer database. The Board’s concern is not that the data be retained as part of the registrar’s registration data records, but that it is being retained someplace, as a safeguard in the event of disputes or other issues, rather than deleted. The Board is seeking clarification on whether this understanding is consistent with the Supplemental Recommendation.
Call for Volunteers
In line with above, Council Leadership has requested Support Staff to send out a call for volunteers for those interested in drafting a response to the Board. Support Staff will set up a Google doc for the volunteers to work offline and will be available to assist in coordinating a meeting if the volunteers would prefer to discuss over Zoom.
If you are interested in participating, please respond to this message by Thursday, 7 January.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council