[Gnso-epdp-team] Minor edits - Rec #20 - email discussion
Brian.King at markmonitor.com
Wed Mar 25 19:54:00 UTC 2020
Hi Marc and all,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss offline, Marc. Yes, the "also" is the primary concern. We should also change the "MAY" to a "may" as it is informative language describing the behavior of another policy; it is not defining normative requirements/obligations of implementers of the Phase 2 policy.
We withdraw our "cannot live with" if we can make these two minor updates, which are hopefully not controversial. Thanks all.
Brian J. King
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
T +1 443 761 3726
Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 3:00 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Minor edits - Rec #20 - email discussion
As time is short, I want to try and cover this via email. The first minor edit proposed by the BC is this:
Page 9 (223-224)
As a friendly amendment, the final sentence doesn't seem to add anything but confusion. P/P providers do not need the EPDP's permission to use a pseudonumized email address. The word "also" is particularly problematic as it could be interpreted as "in addition to the RDDS data" (mentioned in the preceding sentence). We think this recommendation is clearer with this sentence removed.
Friendly amendment: for clarity, strike final sentence in this recommendation.
I think the last sentence is important to have, clarifying that a pseudonymized email may be provided in the response. I understand this is a practice among some P/P providers. Similar language was used in the original phase 1 recommendation# 14 that this is intended to replace.
Is the word "also" the main problem... could concerns be addressed by just removing that word?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team