[Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report

Mark Svancarek (CELA) marksv at microsoft.com
Sun Nov 18 18:06:51 UTC 2018

I think the awkwardness can be resolved simply by changing

“standardized access to non-public registration data portion”
“standardized access to [the] non-public registration data portion”.

Agree with Alex that we should not revise the compromise verbiage beyond the addition of “the”, above.

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deacon
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:02 AM
To: milton at gatech.edu
Cc: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Some badly needed wording fixes as we finalize interim report

Milton, All,

I have to strongly object to Milton's suggestion that the text of Rec #2 be updated as he suggests.   We debated the language for Purpose B (now purpose 2 of Rec #1) for weeks if not months - reviewing many versions and numerous iterations.    By the time we all got to Barcelona the current language of purpose #2 is where we ended up and if you remember I expressed the deep concern the IPC had with the language.

In order to move forward James B. suggested a compromise - resulting in what is now Rec #2 - addressing our concern and allowing us to move forward.  I greatly appreciated (and still appreciate) this pragmatic suggestion from James and was encouraged that there was no objection from any of us in the room.

The request that we change the language of Rec #2 essentially undoes this compromise and puts us back in time many weeks.  A major change to the intent of  a recommendation such as this is inappropriate and must not be allowed.


On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

All, I have been going through the Exec Summary of the interim report and have found some issues. Most of these are grammar or copy editing fixes that I hope we can accept without controversy. One of them has a substantive element, though.

Footnote 2, page 4: “the EPDP Team anticipates taking a formal consensus call..”

Shouldn’t this be “WILL take a formal consensus call…” To say "anticipates" sounds like we might not do so if it’s not convenient. We are required to take a consensus call

Line 150-151: The wording of Preliminary Rec 2 is awkward and ungrammatical. It now reads:

“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy in the system for standardized access to non-public registration data portion of this EPDP regarding lawful access for legitimate third-party interests regarding abuse or intellectual property to data identified herein that is already collected.” This should be changed to:

“The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.”

Page 6, footnote 3. Delete. I thought we had agreed that after agreeing on Preliminary Agreement #3 that new policies on accuracy were out of scope.

Page 6, footnote 4. This can be deleted, as the same text is included later on in page 7, lines 170-172

Milton Mueller
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181118/2365eef6/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list