[IRT.RegDataPolicy] Comparing redlines to approved Wave1 next steps plan

[Anderson, Marc]

Sarah,



Thanks for raising this.  I think you can’t just read that next steps document 
in isolation.  You have to also look at the council resolution 
(https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020).  The relevant part is 
here:



*         3.2 - 
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40175174/action_decision_radar_20200820.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596907091000&api=v2> 
Action Decision Radar decision - Agree on next steps (i.e., for the EPDP-Phase 
1 IRT to prepare draft revisions to the affected policies and publish for 
public comment) for terminology updates as described in the " 
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/wave-1-draft-report-rdp-impacts-13jan20-en.pdf> 
EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27: Registration Data Policy Impacts report" and 
possible actions as described in the " 
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/next-steps-epdp-phase-1-wave-1-rec-27-10mar20-en.pdf> 
Possible next steps EPDP P1 Wave 1 Rec 27". In the course of making updates to 
impacted consensus policies, the EPDP-Phase 1 IRT is instructed to promptly 
advise the GNSO Council if possible policy changes are required.



You have to also take into account the impacts report put together by staff. 
Ultimately though I think we need Sebastien as council liaison to clarify what 
the council expects is in scope for staff/IRT to take on.



-Marc



From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of 
Sarah Wyld
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:40 AM
To: irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Comparing redlines to approved Wave1 
next steps plan



Hello team,



I took a look at the Wave1/Rec27 next steps document (PDF 
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1yKnuv_8cnU50zMDun53yTt0yIr5Aiqn258wnm3gVg55QwxjfXcfhk-2FOhjeHM-ppLBRyZKl-jK8bkA3F1DyRsKwxEpTGBVPIKFKh6NMvDaoobfGarJI4M28Y6I7BcxMr49aJC6uORcxLk3IpSlspUrInnk85zbA8Sr7PsGkaDY7-jxL5OhgjIaBG_lfhM_HvQBpA501QfeHhNXqwS2eNFIbl639xMsmNR8pstQtecTqlPY8p3o_yyIqURHddxsIJke4tjIz_NIGHHScAiCkxg/https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fdrafts%2Fnext-steps-epdp-phase-1-wave-1-rec-27-10mar20-en.pdf> 
 ) to review the direction that was approved by the GNSO Council and I note a 
discrepancy between that plan and our approach to some of these impacted 
policies.



For example, for the UDRP Rules the “type of change required” column has 11 
changes noted. The “possible next steps” column then says:



1. Request EPDP Phase 1 IRT or establish new IRT to address terminology 
updates

2-11 Request RPM Phase 2 to consider these items



This means that the change number 1 should be addressed by this IRT (or a new 
one could be established), while changes 2 – 11 should be sent to the RPM 
Phase 2 Working Group to handle.



In reviewing the UDRP redline 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EqX9X8yP4TpqLcx4yFROu6R_SWs3dPgs/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs> 
, I see there are changes that fall into the 2-11 bucket. For example, change 
6:



6. UDRP Rules section 3(b) describes the required elements for submission of a 
complaint under the UDRP. These include, in item (v), “the name of the 
Respondent (domain-name holder) and all information (including any postal and 
email addresses and telephone and telefax numbers) known to Complainant 
regarding how to contact Respondent or any representative of Respondent, 
including contact information based on pre-complaint dealings, in sufficient 
detail to allow the Provider to send the complaint as described in Paragraph 
2(a).” Per the EPDP Team’s Phase 1 recommendation 23, this provision may be 
updated to clarify that a complaint will not be deemed administratively 
deficient for failure to provide the name of the Respondent and all other 
relevant contact information.



That change is represented in 3(v) of the redline doc, when it should instead 
have been sent back to the RPM WG.



Can the IPT please confirm that we will follow the direction provided in the 
Wave 1 next steps doc which was approved in the August 20 GNSO Council 
meeting?



Thank you,



-- 
Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Domains Product Team
Tucows
 <mailto:swyld at tucows.com> swyld at tucows.com
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20201019/c3abe5d1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20201019/c3abe5d1/image001.png>