[IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec.7 discussion

Thu Aug 8 19:09:13 UTC 2019

Hi All,

Adding to Marc’s discovery, yes there is an error in the final report. Below the tables for Rec #5 and Rec #7 there is illustrative pointer text to an outdated version of the consolidated data elements tables. Note, the tables attached to the recommendations are indeed the correct ones as extracted from the version 1.8 of the Excel version on the community wiki.

Thank you Marc for the correction and apologies for the error.

B

Berry Cobb

@berrycobb 

GNSO Policy Consultant

From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc via IRT.RegDataPolicy
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 14:25
To: dennis.chang at icann.org; irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org
Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion

IPT and IRT members,

The version 1.4 of the Data Elements Matrix that Margie references is an old version.  The correct final version of the Data Elements Matrix is 1.8 and can be found on the Data Elements Workbooks page of the ePDP wiki:  

https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/e.+Data+Elements+Workbooks

In looking at the final report, I see that the link provided for “illustrative purposes” at the end of recommendation #7 (page 10) goes to the old version 1.4 of the Data Elements Matrix.  I hadn’t noticed this before as I have been referring exclusively to the Data Element workbooks found in Appendix D (which start on page 92 of the Final Report).

I suggest everyone make sure you are looking at the correct version 1.8 of the Data Elements Matrix, or better yet stick with the workbooks contained in the Final Report (Appendix D).  These are consistent with version 1.8 of the Matrix document.

Best,

Marc

From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:07 PM
To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org> >; IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion

 Hi All –

After our IRT call, I reread Rec 7 and the supporting appendices, per Marc A’s suggestion.   Rec 7 links to the Data Elements Matrix on Page 10 (attached for your convenience) , which clearly describes what data is required to be transferred to the registry from the registrar, and what data is optional.   

The 3rd page of the Data Elements Matrix (Transfer from Registrar to Registry), clearly notes an R (Required) for the contact data fields that are required to be transferred, which include all of the registrant contacts except for:

*	the Org field  
*	the Tech Contact Name and Email Address , 

which are listed as O-RNH (Optional for the Registered Name Holder) for the purposes listed on the matrix (including, Purpose 2).

As a result, the new policy continues the “thick WHOIS” requirements and our implementation needs to be consistent with Thick WHOIS, especially in light of the Board’s resolution  and its anguage in the scorecard.

Also, please note that this data elements matrix is also relevant to our prior discussion regarding what “optional” means with regard to the Tech Contact and the Org Contact in Rec. 5, footnote 7.   Rec 5 also links to this Data Elements Matrix, and clarifies whether a field is optional to the registrar, registry or registered name holder.  Since the data elements of Tech Field and Org Field are clearly marked as O-RNH and do not include O-Rr (Optional for Registrar), our prior conclusions on Rec .5 need to be revisited in light of this documentation.   

I propose we discuss this at our next IRT meeting.

All the best,

Margie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20190808/3661b367/attachment.html>