[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Tue Mar 8 11:47:09 UTC 2022

Dear All,

Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0/viewanalytics. For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey.


Caitlin, Berry and Marika

From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>
Reply to: "michael at palage.com" <michael at palage.com>
Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39
To: "gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response

Hello All,

This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.”

Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council:

In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the EPDP-identified purposes and the related data processing activities. However, the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes. If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations.

Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements.

To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question.  However, I am NOT asking that question at this time.

I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track.

Best regards,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220308/f086c318/attachment.html>

More information about the GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list