[RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review

Wed Apr 24 19:48:19 UTC 2019

+1 to the comments of Marc, Sarah, and Amr. 

> On Apr 24, 2019, at 12:33 PM, theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> Agreed Marc. 
> 
> And +1 for Sarah and Amr. 
> 
> Theo Geurts    CIPP/E
> 
> On 24-4-2019 21:24, Anderson, Marc via RegDataPolicy.PreIRT wrote:
>> Dennis / IRT members,
>>  
>> I want to add in my plus 1 to this as well.  It is not a coincidence that the recommendation to have a pre-IRT is in the second half of rec #28.  When considering having a bridging mechanism the working group knew there would not be enough time to draft and implement the new policy recommendations by the time the temporary specification expired.  The working group also knew that there would be very little time between when the board could realistically approve the policy recommendations and when the temporary specification expired.  That led to the language in the second half of Rec #28 calling for a pre-IRT.  (For ease of reference, I’m including the entire ePDP Recommendation #28 language below.)
>>  
>> I think the implementation timeline outlined on slide 8 (attached) correctly identifies two deliverables for the IPT/IRT.  By the time the temporary policy expires on May 20th, there needs to be a bridging mechanism in place as outlined in recommendations #28.  This is the first deliverable.  This should also be the focus of the pre-IRT.  As discussed on today’s call, to the extent possible, the IPT should be drafting that language now and looking to the IRT members for clarification and assistance in that drafting.  Also as discussed on today’s call, I recognize that there may not be enough time for a traditional public comment period (as is typical before publishing final policy language) but the IRT members should be leveraged to review that language prior to it being published.
>>  
>> The second deliverable is the policy language for the remainder of the phase 1 policy recommendations.  As has been discussed, this would ideally be delivered at least 180 days before the 29 February 2020 effective date from recommendation 28.  While I have no concerns with the pre-IRT considering/working on this second deliverable, this should really only be done after the much more time sensitive bridging mechanism deliverable has been addressed.
>>  
>> Best,
>> Marc
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> EPDP Team Recommendation #28.
>> The EPDP Team recommends that the effective date of the gTLD Registration Data Policy shall be February 29, 2020. All gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to comply with the gTLD Registration Data Policy as of that date. The EPDP Team recommends that until February 29, 2020, registries and registrars are required EITHER to comply with this gTLD Registration Data Policy OR continue to implement measures consistent with the Temporary Specification (as adopted by the ICANN Board on 17 May 2018, and expired on 25 May 2019). Registries and registrars who continue to implement measures compliant with the expired Temporary Specification will not be subject to Compliance penalty specifically related to those measures until February 29, 2020.
>>  
>> The EPDP Team furthermore recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the GNSO Council and ICANN Org, informally convene the Implementation Review Team to allow for the necessary planning to take place before ICANN Board consideration of this Final Report, following which the IRT would be formally convened.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: RegDataPolicy.PreIRT <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Matt Serlin
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:17 PM
>> To: Plaut, Diane <Diane.Plaut at corsearch.com> <mailto:Diane.Plaut at corsearch.com>; Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> <mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>; Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com> <mailto:swyld at tucows.com>
>> Cc: regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
>>  
>> Apologies as I wasn’t able to join the call today but would like to just echo what Sarah has indicated below that Rec. 28 seems to be the most critical at this juncture with the Temp Spec expiring in a matter of weeks.
>>  
>> Regards,
>> Matt. 
>>  
>> From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Plaut, Diane" <Diane.Plaut at corsearch.com <mailto:Diane.Plaut at corsearch.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:03 PM
>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com <mailto:swyld at tucows.com>>
>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
>>  
>> I agree with Amr and Sarah, Rec. 28 has to be a priority.
>>  
>> Best, Diane
>>  
>> Diane Plaut
>> General Counsel and Privacy Officer
>> <image002.png>
>> Direct +1 646-899-2806 
>> diane.plaut at corsearch.com <mailto:diane.plaut at corsearch.com> 
>> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States
>> www.corsearch.com <http://www.corsearch.com/> 
>> Join Corsearch on   Twitter <https://twitter.com/corsearch>  Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/>  Trademarks + Brands <http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/>
>> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241)
>> Corsearch.USCustomerService at corsearch.com <mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService at corsearch.com>  
>>  
>> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: "RegDataPolicy.PreIRT" <regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>>
>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja <mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM
>> To: Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com <mailto:swyld at tucows.com>>
>> Cc: "regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org>" <regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org <mailto:regdatapolicy.preirt at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [RegDataPolicy.PreIRT] Prioritization of draft bridge policy review vs recommendation review
>>  
>> Hi, 
>>  
>> Thanks for this, Sarah. I obviously agree with all of it. :-) Also wanted to add that should we need to hold a call to wrap rec #28 up, we should probably schedule one prior to the next call on 15 May.
>>  
>> Thanks again.
>>  
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com <mailto:swyld at tucows.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hello,
>> Thank you all for a productive meeting today, I was very glad to see this team start going through the recommendations and confirming that #2 and #3 do not require IRT action. I'm also interested in the planned schedule for recommendation review, as Beth mentioned. We'd be happy to work ahead in the Google Sheet to provide input. 
>> 
>> That said, I want to emphasize again as discussed on our call today that I'd like to see a draft of the bridging Policy document before it is published. I strongly agree with Amr's point that this draft Policy review should be the immediate priority for this team, and I am curious about Dennis's comment that Rec. 28 was skipped on purpose. This bridging Policy is the first real hurdle for the IRT to clear, it needs to be completed before any recommendation analysis is due, and I do think that if a draft can be shared with the team in the next few days, we would have sufficient time to review and provide any feedback before it needs to be finalized in mid-May. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Sarah 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sarah Wyld
>> Domains Product Team
>> Tucows
>> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
>>  
>>  
>> <signature.asc>
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list
>> RegDataPolicy.PreIRT at icann.org <mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt>
> _______________________________________________
> RegDataPolicy.PreIRT mailing list
> RegDataPolicy.PreIRT at icann.org <mailto:RegDataPolicy.PreIRT at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/regdatapolicy.preirt>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/regdatapolicy.preirt/attachments/20190424/a2ec14d3/attachment-0001.html>