[Gnso-epdp-team] RrSG edits -- Section 4.4

Alex Deacon alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
Fri Sep 7 00:27:38 UTC 2018

Hi James,

Thanks again for the time and effort you and the Registrars put into this
redline - it is appreciated and helpful IMO.

On the call this morning I quickly ran through several comments on your
redline and now that I'm well caffeinated and had a chance to quickly sync
with my team I wanted to repeat them here on the list.

1) Temp Spec section 4.4 address Processing of all kinds so I do not agree
that purposes (in the subsections) that are somehow related to access
should be removed or addressed in the access model (4.4.2, 4.4.9 for
example).  The GDPR requires that we define/set a specific set of purposes
up front for all Processing related to gTLD registration data.  (See
letters from Art 29)  While i understand and agree that discussions around
access models or implementation or accreditation won't happen until we
answer several gating questions, we must still define specific purposes for
lawful processing for all types of processing, including access, now.

2) Regarding 4.4 itself, I suggest we continue to work on updates to this
section on the thread started by Thomas shortly before our call today and
my reply.

3) We do not agree with the removal of 4.4.2.  However given you clarified
that these purposes are for Registrars only and in light of the discussion
on the need to create several sub-sections under 4.4 to ensure we do not
conflate purposes of various controllers and 3rd parties we believe Section
4.4.2 would be better suited in the ICANN purposes sub-section.

4) We also disagree with the updates to 4.4.8.  Mostly because it is not
clear to us what "tailored mechanisms designed to protect intellectual
property interests (as provide[d]) for by Section 4.4)" means.   If the
intent was to refer to section 4.4.12, which references the URS and UDRP as
the "tailored mechanisms", then we would also object as URS and UDRP only
address a subset of intellectual property interests.   We also have an
issue with the footnote that states that the items in 4.4.8 "go beyond the
original purpose (domain name registrations) for collecting data." but
perhaps this can also be addressed when we move purposes into their
respective sections.

5) Finally we believe that any dispute resolution capabilities for
registrars and registries need to be thought out carefully, and reserve
further comment until more details are known.



On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:19 PM Alex Deacon <alex at colevalleyconsulting.com>

> Thanks James and team for these redlines - having something concrete to
> review and discuss is always a plus.
> Based on a quick read (very late in the day) I have several concerns and
> questions.     I look forward to your overview of these proposed updates
> tomorrow and will make it a priority to take a closer look at the details
> and consult with my team after the Thursday call.
> Good night.
> Alex
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> wrote:
>> ePDP Team –
>> In preparation for tomorrow’s call, please find attached a redline PDF of
>> our edits to Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, along with a slide/PDF with
>> “clean” language for Kurt & Staff. Matt, Theo and I will walk through these
>> edits, along with our rationale.
>> Look forward to our discussion tomorrow.
>> Thanks—
>> J.
>> -------------
>> *James Bladel*
>> GoDaddy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> --
> ___________
> *Alex Deacon*
> Cole Valley Consulting
> alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
> +1.415.488.6009

*Alex Deacon*
Cole Valley Consulting
alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180906/0b275a26/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list