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

Mon Nov 19 12:52:23 UTC 2018

Dear Alex,

I recall discussing the language that has apparently ended up as recommendation #2, but I do not remember agreeing to it. It is incomprehensible from a lay reader’s perspective, and achieves none of the clarity we should be striving for.

Thus I support Milton’s clear and concise text as follows: “The EPDP Team commits to develop and coordinate policy for disclosure of non-public registration data to third parties with legitimate interests.”

NB this will likely be my last post to the list for a couple of weeks. I’ll be replaced by Rod Rasmussen this week, and Greg Aaron next week. As ever, please remember that we do not represent formal SSAC consensus.

Best,
Benedict.

> On 19 Nov 2018, at 01:06, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> I am sorry, Alex, but this was not “compromise language” this was your (partial) stakeholder group’s preferred language. It was never acceptable to us, and we never accepted it. It is also not acceptable to many of the CPH people.
>  
> If your memory is more complete, you will recall that the term “intellectual property” was part of the problem. ICANN is not in the business of resolving disputes about patents and copyright – the latter is about content – and the term “abuse” is dangerously vague, given that people can call anything they don’t like on the internet “abuse.” If it really pertains to domain name abuse, would already be covered under security and stability. So what does this language add, really? We object to it because it potentially broadens the scope of disclosure requests beyond ICANN’s mission. We have always made that clear and never accepted that language.
>  
> The true compromise was precisely to NOT be specific at this stage. We will work out the terms and scope of “access” later, after the gating questions are resolved. A general formulation does not preclude your concerns, unless you think that IP infringement is not a “legitimate interest.” Which would surprise me. I for one find it inconceivable that TM and copyright lawbreakers would not at some stage be subject to law enforcement disclosure requests.
>  
> Sorry, but that wording cannot go into the final interim report.
>  
>  
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>  
>  
>  
>   <>
> From: Alex Deacon [mailto:alex at colevalleyconsulting.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:02 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <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.  
>  
> Regards,
> Alex
>  
>  
> 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>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181119/37828601/attachment-0001.html>