[IRT.RegDataPolicy] Recommendation 8

Thu Sep 26 18:34:25 UTC 2019

Thank you Dennis, that distinction between ICANN Org & CP vs ICANN Org &
3rd party makes sense to me.

-- 
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

On 9/26/2019 12:45 PM, Dennis Chang wrote:
>
> Thanks to Sarah for organizing the recommendations regarding the DPAs.
>
> I agreed with your assessment regarding DPAs.
>
>  
>
> To summarize, I see the recommendations in two distinct categories of
> parties.
>
>  
>
> ICANN org & Contracted Parties
>
> 	
>
> ICANN org & Third-Parties
>
> Rec 19
>
> 	
>
> Rec 8: Data Escrow Provider
>
> Rec 22: Dispute Resolution Providers
>
> Rec 26: Data Escrow Providers and EBERO providers
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I hope this view helps and it aligns with the IRT’s view.
>
> Please note that I am using “third-parties” rather than
> “non-contracted parties” that the Rec 26 uses.
>
>  
>
> We do plan on working the implementation for the third-parties in a
> similar way as you suggest.
>
> I will keep the IRT in the loop as we make progress.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Dennis Chang
>
>  
>
> *From: *"IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com>
> *Organization: *Tucows
> *Date: *Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:55 AM
> *To: *"irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Recommendation 8
>
>  
>
> Thanks to Roger for bringing this up, and to Dennis for that helpful
> explanation.
>
> There are four recommendations pertaining to DPAs (8, 19, 22, 26, see
> attached); they're each worded slightly differently but with
> ultimately the same effect. As such, I'd think that we should address
> them similarly here in the IRT, so if we are writing policy language
> for Rec's 19 and 22 shouldn't we also do the same for Rec's 8 and 26?
>
> I'm also still not quite sure that it's ideal to combine the Rec's 19
> and 22 into one policy section, since they are for agreements between
> different sets of parties (19 is between ICANN and the CP, 22 is
> between ICANN and the dispute resolution provider). 
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -- 
> Sarah Wyld
> Domains Product Team
> Tucows
> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
>  
>  
>
> On 9/19/2019 1:44 PM, Dennis Chang wrote:
>
>     Hi Roger,
>
>      
>
>     You are correct that the IRT was assigned to review 8.3 only.
>
>      
>
>     For 8.1 and 82, I communicate to the IRT by using the Rec Analysis
>     sheet in the IRT workbook.
>
>     https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r8yMMEFIFS-KHGMsnLdVbdn0O_GWhf7vNLlNIZYP47U/edit#gid=0
>
>     See Cell E9: IPT action for Rec 8.
>
>     “8.1 & 8.2 Ensure DPAs, as appropriate, are entered into with data
>     escrow agents.
>
>     8.3 draft policy language: provided by the link in D7”
>
>      
>
>     This was the process I was using back in June.
>
>     We switched to creating separate docs for each recommendations per
>     Theo’s suggestion in July.
>
>     I’ll see if I can make this more clear for the IRT in terms of
>     assignments.
>
>      
>
>     As of now, no IRT assignments for the 8.1 and 8.2 so you didn’t
>     miss anything.
>
>      
>
>     Thanks f0r being vigilant and the question.
>
>      
>
>     Dennis Chang
>
>      
>
>     *From: *"IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org>
>     <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Roger D
>     Carney <rcarney at godaddy.com> <mailto:rcarney at godaddy.com>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM
>     *To: *"irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org"
>     <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org> <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
>     <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
>     *Subject: *[IRT.RegDataPolicy] Recommendation 8
>
>      
>
>     Good Afternoon,
>
>      
>
>     Marc brought up a point about Data Escrow providers today on the
>     call that made me go back and look at recommendation 8 and I
>     realized that we may have missed parts of this recommendation in
>     our IRT work. Line 19 (#18) of our Task List covers recommendation
>     8 sub item 3 but I don’t see where we scheduled/reviewed sub items
>     1 and 2 of recommendation 8.
>
>      
>
>     Dennis, are these items covered somewhere else that I am missing?
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Roger
>
>      
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list
>
>     IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org <mailto:IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20190926/37bdfd18/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20190926/37bdfd18/signature.asc>