[Gnso-epdp-team] Permission to publish redacted information

[Alan Greenberg]

Any of the fields that are redacted but not 
explicitly contact which I would class as mailing 
address, telephone and e-mail. Based on the table 
on page 50/51, that means the Registry Registrant 
ID, Registrant name, Organization, Tech ID, Tech 
Name. The two name fields and Organization are in 
my mind the most important, but I see no reason 
not to follow the original intent and apply to all redacted fields.

If those are implied in "contact information", it 
should explicitly be stated because it is not obvious.

Also note the the term "additional" is vague. I 
believe it should specifically refer to the 
redacted or otherwise obscured fields.

Alan

At 15/02/2019 10:30 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
>Alan, can you clarify why you consider that this 
>is not covered under recommendation #6:
>
>"The EPDP Team recommends that, as soon as 
>commercially reasonable, Registrar must provide 
>the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder 
>to provide its Consent to publish additional 
>contact information in the RDS for the sponsoring registrar."
>
>Thanks,
>
>Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
>On 2/15/19, 08:55, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf 
>of Alan Greenberg" 
><gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>     Temp Spec 2.3 allowed a registrant to consent to publication of
>     redacted fields. In Toronto, we noted that this did not apply to
>     e-mail since it was not technically "redacted". Rec #6 addressed
>     this. But we seem to have lost the ability of a registrant to consnt
>     to publication of the redacted fields!
>
>     Is this an error that will be corrected or intentional (I do not
>     recall such a decision).
>
>     Alan
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>     Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>