[IRT.RegDataPolicy] IRT Liaison to the GNSO Council

Mon Sep 14 11:37:52 UTC 2020

Thank you Roger for your comments.

First, I am asked by the Council leadership to present a written report on the situation after working on this for a few months now.
This is not intended to present anything but the fact that we haven’t reached any consensus, in fact, comments from Pam and Rafik (who have been helping me with figuring out the process) point towards underlying the division. I don’t see how I can present anything consensual or leaning to a resolution at this stage. I have already done this twice verbally thinking in good faith that we were.

By “mirroring” I did mean “the flip opposite”, if it is not what transpires I’ll just blame the French guy in me. I am happy to replace with “by opposition”.
I agree with you, the conclusions drawn by the 2 parties in the case of “no conflict between Rec 7 and Thick WHOIS” are exactly opposite.

Regarding the term “Recommendation”, I am trying as much as I can to quote everyone as literally as possible (readability and context allowing). In the case of the term from your proposal on Friday (following Amr’s proposed questions), and was “edited” by Brian to present his contradictory view.

At this very late stage, I will not add any further edits; it would not be fair to add one side’s points and not afford the others the right to answer. This said, I intend to speak to the report on our next Council meeting on the 24th, which gives this group an extra 10 days to come up with a common message if you want me to qualify my report.
As per my earlier request, I only ask this to be drafted in Consensus or clearly marking the point of diversion, and I would like it in writing. To this extend I think we can start with your last two points if everyone can agree on them.

Kindly,

Sebastien Ducos
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[signature_741028437]
+61449623491
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
3004
sebastien at registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien at registry.godaddy>
www.linkedin.com/in/sebastienducos<https://www.linkedin.com/in/sebastienducos>

From: "IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Roger D Carney <rcarney at godaddy.com>
Date: Monday, 14 September 2020 at 2:27 am
To: "Ducos, Sebastien via IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] IRT Liaison to the GNSO Council

Notice: This email is from an external sender.

Good Afternoon,

Thanks for sending this Sebastien.

I do not support presenting this to Council, as it is written, as it may not resolve the issue. The only option this presents that will resolve this conflict is if the Council decides that ePDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 conflicts with the Thick WHOIS Policy, as this determination is the only one that the entire IRT appear to agree on what that means and what the expected outcome would be.

I also believe that the wording "Mirroring the above" is completely misleading as the outcome of the determination of "Council believes there is no conflict" is completely different and is the exact issue we are trying to resolve. In addition, I believe the use of "recommendation" is completely inappropriate and misleading when describing the outcome the IP/BC/IPT support if the Council believes there is no conflict, "recommendation" is a direct reference to the final report. The text of the "no conflict" outcome for the BC/IP/IPT would need to be changed to something like "...the recommendation language is not needed in the Policy..." or removed completely.

If text similar to what you are proposing is to be presented to Council, then it needs to be made clearer by explicitly calling out that there are two outcome options for "no conflict":

  1.  The language from Recommendation 7 "provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place" should be included in the Policy and the Policy language suggested by CPH is appropriate.
  2.  The language from Recommendation 7 "provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place" is not needed and the Policy language suggested by staff is appropriate.

Thanks
Roger

________________________________
From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sebastien at registry.godaddy <Sebastien at registry.godaddy>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Ducos, Sebastien via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] IRT Liaison to the GNSO Council

Notice: This email is from an external sender.

Dear IRT Members,

Please find attached my report to the GNSO Council.
This will be filed tomorrow to meet my deadline on document submission for the next GNSO Meeting on 24 September.

Please note that as per my suggestion on Friday, I based the report on the earlier “Path Forward” document, removing any mention of my earlier suggested path. I have left you a redline from that earlier document.

As per my 26 August email, having received no group-approved instructions in writing, I am reporting in my own name on the situation as I see it. In a continuous attempt to remain neutral, I try representing the different views as I understand them, up until the last exchanges on Friday.

I will seek direction/suggestions from the Council on their views on “if the Council believes there is no conflict between Rec 7 and the Thick WHOIS Policy” and their understanding of the implications.

Kindly,

Sebastien Ducos

GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager

[signature_445988404]

+61449623491

Level 8, 10 Queens Road

Melbourne, VIC, Australia

3004

sebastien at registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien at registry.godaddy>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20200914/1d8c1d3e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 39875 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20200914/1d8c1d3e/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 52022 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20200914/1d8c1d3e/image002-0001.png>