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

Tue Oct 20 19:12:08 UTC 2020

Hi Sarah, Marc, and All,

I hope this response can resolve the confusion around the GNSO Council’s decision regarding the IRT’s task(s) for handling the Rec#27 Wave 1 report. It will be more about process than substance and as a result, I also hope it can alleviate Sebastian of this action item. Apologies for the lengthy response.

Picking up further on Marc’s comment, the Rec#27 Wave 1 report should serve as the guide for resolving the identified policy impacts, while the next steps document is a reference document that does not warrant the same close examination. As always, hindsight is 20/20, and looking back, the reference to the possible next steps document should not have been included in the consent agenda item decision by the Council. 

For background, before the EPDP Phase 1, prior implementations of consensus policy recommendations involved policy changes to the respective policies only, i.e., the board-approved IRTP recommendations resulted in updates only to the IRTP, not other Consensus Policies. It’s with this understanding that the EPDP Team recommended the inclusion of Rec#27 in its Phase 1 Final Report. Specifically, the EPDP Team noted that references within other Consensus Policies to an administrative and/or technical contact would need to be updated as a result of the EPDP Team’s Phase 1 recommendations. At the time of the Rec#27 Wave 1 report (Jan. 2020) being delivered to the Council, it was not clear exactly how the identified impacts were to be addressed. 

At this same time, the Council was coming out of its annual strategic planning session, where actions around prioritization, project and program management were the Council’s main focus. Understanding that available bandwidth based on the current workload was at a premium, and because the Council was on the hook for a decision, the “possible next steps” document was prepared in March 2020 to help them better understand how to execute that decision. Unfortunately, though, the decision(s) were not immediate given the breadth of the impacts across 17 policies. 

Fast forward to June/July, the GNSO Council reviewed the new program management tools (PMT/ADR) created by Policy Support Staff, and, using the possible next steps document as one of several inputs, the tools made an attempt to find the proper place for these impacted policies to be addressed. At a high-level, the “possible next steps” document outlined for each policy:

1.	assign redline changes to an IRT; or 
2.	if there are implications to consensus policy, attach that work to a group that can further deliberate the policy issues. 

An example of the second option is the identification of the impacts to URS Rules and Procedures, which, noting the current and active PDP WG (RPM WG), the GNSO Council assigned the review of this to the RPM WG, which is underway. However, noting that not all affected Consensus Policies have a corresponding and active WG, e.g., Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the GNSO Council consulted with Policy Support Staff to determine the best path forward for these types of Consensus Policies. 

After several staff consultations, it became clearer that impacted policies as a result of to-be-implemented EPDP Phase 1 consensus recommendation HAD to be addressed as part of EPDP Phase 1 implementation to correct outdated language and, most of all, to avoid confusion when the Registration Data Policy is announced. Using the example above regarding the Expiration policies, if no immediate action is taken, it could be years before a future working group could address the impacts, resulting in outdated and incorrect language in these policies for that same duration. As another example, the GNSO Council knew that a policy development process would start in the near term for the Transfer Policy; however, even with an upcoming PDP, it would still be at least 18 months before any possible outcome could be realized. Thus, the GNSO Council decided the impacts to other Consensus Policies should be handled now. This understanding is what led to the “three buckets approach” that is now guiding the IRT’s work on the impacted policies.

The first bucket involves “red line changes of terminology updates”. As identified in the Wave 1 report, most of the policies will require terminology updates, e.g., “Whois” to change to “Registration Data” or “RDDS”, removal of references to administrative contact, etc. 

The second bucket involves changes identified as part of implementing the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations, i.e., Rec#24 (supplemental procedures to the Transfer Policy). Now that the IRT/IPT have begun producing redlines of the 17 policy documents, it made more sense to alleviate confusion by updating the policy documents themselves instead of referencing multiple policy changes in an Appendix of the Registration Data Policy. 

The third bucket involves policy changes that are identified but would result in an improper amendment to the policy, i.e., the update is neither a terminology update, nor is it an EPDP Phase 1-prompted update. If these types of updates are identified, they should be flagged to the GNSO Council as areas that will require further policy work. In essence, this activity is a confirmation of those areas in the Rec#27 Wave 1 report that suggest that if there is future policy work on these topics, the community may want to consider them.

This is a long-winded way of saying that the Rec#27 Wave 1 report is the authoritative document that governs the IPT/IRT work on the redlines of the impacted policies, while the “possible next steps” document is, at best, a reference guide. The IRT is being asked to closely review the redline edits from the IPT to assist in providing oversight to the IPT’s work. Following the IRT’s review, the redlined policies will be published for public comment.

Knowing then what we know now, the Wave 1 report, as part of implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 Rec#27, would have only been delivered to the IRT as part of its implementation work and had not been routed first to the GNSO Council. As per the 3rd bucket and as part of CPIF, if during implementation the changes led to improper amendments to the policy, it would be directed back to the GNSO Council for next steps.

Regarding the example identified by Sarah, I won’t claim expertise on this specific part of the UDRP Rules. As documented in the Wave 1 report, this seems to be connected to Rec#23 from the EPDP Phase 1 report. Setting substance aside for the experts, if this suggested edit is questionable and agreed to by the IRT, then perhaps this should be flagged for the third bucket so that we can communicate it back to the GNSO Council and recommend the GNSO Council to assign this issue to the RPM Phase 2 PDP WG, which will be responsible for reviewing the UDRP.

Please advise if you have any additional questions.

Thank you.

B

Berry Cobb

GNSO Policy Consultant

Principal | BAC in Black Consulting <http://bacinblack.com/> 

Mob: +1 (720) 839-5735

 <https://twitter.com/berrycobb> 

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/berrycobb/> 

From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc via IRT.RegDataPolicy
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:49
To: swyld at tucows.com; irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org
Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Comparing redlines to approved Wave1 next steps plan

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20201020/0719a7ff/attachment-0001.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/20201020/0719a7ff/image001-0001.png>