[Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays

[James M. Bladel]

Brian –

The Contact Relay/Webform was established in the Temp Spec, and enshrined in the Interim Consensus Policy on Registration Data.  Whether, or how well, these systems meet the needs of IP users is a distinctly different topic from the concept of a uniform anonymized email address, which (presumably, if adopted) would eliminate the need for Contact Relays systems.

I think the IPC position on the efficacy of these Relay systems (and SSAD, and all of Phase 1 and Phase 2 for that matter) is well understood by this point.  Our compressed calendar means we need to narrowly focus on our two charter questions and not be distracted by settled issues from prior phases.

Thanks-

J.


From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Date: Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 15:28
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays
Notice: This email is from an external sender.


Hi James,

I’d like to understand your request a bit better.

For many IP purposes, having a reliable email address is necessary to facilitate communication with the RNH, especially since web forms have proven insufficient for many of us. To the IP folks, contactability is an important reason for our work on “the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address” (Temp Spec, emphasis added). I was concerned (or hopefully confused) to hear the RrSG assert that email contact was not necessary for IP purposes – I’d think we could either take the IPC’s word on that, or attempt to understand each other better.

If we agree that some form of email address is needed, or that we need to understand each other better, let’s proceed accordingly. If not, I’d ask candidly whether we should expect the RrSG to join consensus on a (lawful) requirement to provide an email contact, if the RrSG position is that email is not necessary and the RrSG is unwilling to discuss it further.

Brian J. King​
He/Him/His
Head of Policy and Advocacy, Intellectual Property Group

T +1 443 761 3726​
clarivate.com​
Accelerating innovation

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:32 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Contact Relays

Hi folks –

On last Thursday’s call, we spent a chunk of time discussing the merits/efficacy of various Registrar implementations of the Contact Relay requirement.

In my view, this is one of htose topics that our group can’t resist debating, and yet it is not within scope for our work in Phase 2A.  Our calendar is extremely tight, and I would ask everyone (myself included) to try and avoid these “catnip” topics that burn a lot of call time, but ultimately don’t end up anywhere.

Thanks—

J.


Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210118/cc2f73c9/attachment.html>