<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Please read the legal opinions Milton.</p>
<p>Stephanie<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-05-05 11:44 a.m., Mueller,
Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:BN7PR07MB46893BD5D21191BECFF91694A1599@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: sans-serif; color:
white; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; padding: .2em;">
<strong><span style="color: #c75000;">EXTERNAL EMAIL:</span></strong></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,
Manju<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As
you note, but were too polite to say, the “hold the line”
position articulated by Kathy and Stephanie completely
ignores the main issue facing us, which is the guidance.
It is clear from your statement that their position does
not have support among the EPDP representatives of NCSG,
not because it is wrong but because it is irrelevant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">On
“keeping the guidance from becoming a requirement,” I
think we can actually win on that. I see no ability for an
overwhelming consensus to develop on making it mandatory.
I don’t think our team members or the CPs have ever
disagreed on that.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
do think that there are differences about what the
guidance should be. The registrars’ insistence on equating
the legal person distinction with the presence or absence
of personal data in the record is a point of disagreement.
If we go that way, the registration process becomes a lot
more complicated and expensive, the registrars become more
involved in verifying the Registrant’s identity, and they
acquire liability and responsibility, which we don’t want.
Keep the guidance as simple as possible and let the motto
be: Keep the registrant in control.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr.
Milton L Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia
Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">School
of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a href="https://internetgovernance.org/" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">Internet
Governance Project</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>??? Manju Chen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 5, 2021 2:42 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Option 1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi
all, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I
agree with Stephanie and Kathy that we have to 'hold
the line', but my idea of 'the line' is a bit
different than the simple 'status quo'. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">In
my opinion, the line we should definitely hold is 'to
keep the guidance from becoming a requirement'. So we
maintain that 'registrars should be able to choose to
differentiate or not' but develop guidance for if they
wish to do so. Basically Milton's scenario 3. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I'd
also like to point out that according to Volker's
statement on behalf of RrSG, they are not against
developing guidance either. In fact, the RrSG has
provided a table as their proposed guidance on this
matter. I would encourage us to work with CPs on
refining the table and make sure the final guidance
resembles RrSG's table instead of the
detailed instructions currently proposed by the
surveillance caucus. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Manju<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:39 AM
Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">milton@gatech.edu</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kathy,
Stephanie, and NCSG members:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Personally,
I would have no problem falling in line with your
position. But there are two fatal flaws that you
need to address. First, you are describing only
what _<i>we</i>_ want and not thinking at all
about how you get consensus. Second, your
description of what we want does NOT correspond to
what will actually happen if we “hold the line.”
As much as I would like to promote harmony and
unity among NCSG EPDP representatives, I don’t
think you have thought things through.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
know perfectly well that we don’t want any
differentiation and that the registrars don’t
either. What you are overlooking is that the other
half of the EPDP does want it, and the board will
see the EPDP as deadlocked. So Option 1 will make
you feel very self-righteous in the short term,
but what happens next? You are, as I will show,
leading us down a blind alley.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
can think of 3 scenarios we can discuss as a basis
for action.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scenario
1.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">We
“hold the line,” and we revert to Phase 1
recommendations unchanged. There is _<i>no
guidance</i>_. The other half of the EPDP just
gives up and accepts it. This result is not bad, I
admit, if that last bit happens.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">But
what are the Phase 1 recommendations? You have
misrepresented the “status quo” as not
differentiating legal and natural. WRONG. What
will happen under this option is that any
registrar or registry can choose to differentiate
in any way they like. And there will be no
guidance that you can appeal to if they do it
wrong. You say you don’t want registrars asking
users whether they are legal or natural. Well,
sorry, that can happen under your Option 1. A
deadlock on EPDP means that differentiation is
neither prohibited or required, it is up to the
contracted parties. Many registrars won’t do it,
but some will. Registries could do it, too. This
is the “let the market decide” option. Stephanie
has become a libertarian, I guess.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scenario
2</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scenario
1 assumes the other side accepts defeat. But what
if we “hold the line,” and the other half of the
EPDP doesn’t accept it? The European Commission,
the US justice department, the GAC, SSAC, and of
course the IPC/BC and ALAC join a strong chorus
telling the board “something must be done.” The
Board is influenced, and refuses to accept the
recommendation, as it has done with the SSAD
(which the same group of stakeholders opposed). We
have seen the Board cave to GAC and governmental
demands again and again, the latest example being
“curative rights” for IGO acronyms, which the GNSO
never approved. Worse, the EC may modify its NIS2
legislation to require ICANN to differentiate. The
US congress could intervene. The issue festers for
another three – five years. Several powerful
players start attacking the multistakeholder
process. Maybe ICANN corrupts its process once
again. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scenario
3</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Scenario
3 is that we don’t require differentiation of
legal persons, but we develop consensus guidance
on how contracted parties should do it if they
choose to do it. This is the most likely scenario,
and it’s one that your position paper completely
ignores. If you do want guidance, the approach to
guidance that I have suggested is best, because it
is a very lightweight process of
self-identification by registrants. By offering
some differentiation it may defuse the opposition
of the other stakeholders. On the other hand
Stephanie’s complicated, expensive and
power-surrendering approach is not the kind of
guidance we want.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">By
now it should be clear to anyone who’s read this
far that Scenario 1 is not as wonderful as you say
and may not be possible. The EPDP is already
deeply invested in developing guidance about how
registrars should and should not differentiate. We
have been working on it for weeks. Unless
something changes radically in the next week, we
will actually produce some guidance about
differentiation. So, I suggest that we confine our
debate to Scenario 2: the developing of nonbinding
guidance. I suggest again that allowing
registrants to choose to identify their
registration as one of a legal person, with their
data published or automatically available via
SSAD, creates a path to consensus and to resolving
the issue, whereas your preferred path does not.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">To
conclude, I call your attention to a pathology
that is paralyzing nearly all of ICANN’s working
groups. Defining your position and “holding the
line” is a strategy that all the SGs and ACs seem
to adopt now. It turns all these deliberations
into a bunch of people re-stating their position
again and again for 3-4 years, re-litigating
issues endlessly, avoiding any serious middle
ground. No thought is given to finding a solution
that achieves a critical mass of consensus.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Anyone
who wants to be a serious participant in
developing the NCSG’s position in EPDP has to
answer a very basic question: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">How
does this end?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What
is your scenario for achieving the level of
agreement needed to pass a policy?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Looking
forward to your response.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr.
Milton L Mueller</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia
Institute of Technology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">School
of Public Policy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a href="https://internetgovernance.org/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Internet
Governance Project</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="mailto:kathy@DNRC.TECH" moz-do-not-send="true">kathy@DNRC.TECH</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Option 1</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Tx
to Milton, Stephanie, Manju, Tapani, Farzi, Mark
Leiser, Kim von Arx and everyone else who
commented on our dicussion of options for the
EPDP.<br>
<br>
As it's time to wrap up this issue so our EPDP
members can present our view to the EPDP Group, I
co-wrote the email Stephanie posted earlier today
(attached below too). Best regards, Kathy<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Fellow NCSG members,<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D">></span>We would
like to work together to share our rationale for
Option 1 –
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">maintaining
the status quo and not asking further follow-up
questions, mandatory or otherwise, about legal and
natural persons. While the EPDP phase 2a
discussions have been an educational and
interesting exercise, we are not under any
obligation to change the existing policy, or
further complicate it.<br>
<br>
As we have all discussed, legal/natural person
questions are very complicated for many of our
members who are often noncommercial and non-profit
organizations whose structure and ways of
obtaining domain names do not resemble those of
the large corporations other stakeholder groups
represent. Our members may have many layers of
privacy protection in less-well-known sections of
the GDPR, other local law, Constitutions and
international conventions.<br>
<br>
We learned that recent studies show that 50% of
gTLD domain name registrations are for natural
persons – and at least 25% more have overlapping
entity and personal data (e.g., the organization
name has personal data in it and is thus protected
as personal data).<br>
<br>
Stephanie and Kathy shared their concerns for
legal/natural person questions during our long
work on the Proxy and Privacy Accreditation
Working Group. We worked closely with the
Registrars Stakeholder Group to protect registrant
privacy – including Battered Women’s Shelters,
family planning clinics, and girls educational
institutions – all of which may be legal entities,
but have protectable data due to obvious danger
from disclosure in certain countries. <br>
<br>
<strong><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">In
light of the complicated world around us, we
support Option 1- the Status Quo. </span></i></strong>
We ask the NCSG to adopt this as our stance.
<strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Based
on the existing policy which makes
differentiation of legal/natural persons
optional for each registrar, we believe we
already have the</span></strong><b><br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-
best way to fight DNS Abuse,</span></strong><br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-
best way to protect individuals and
noncommercial organizations, and</span></strong><br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-
best way to follow GDPR and other
applicable human rights and free speech laws</span></strong><br>
<br>
<em><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Therefore,
we recommend NCSG “hold the line” and stick
with Option 1.</span></em></b><br>
<br>
<em><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">As
the Registrars wrote in their EPDP Statement
on Thursday April 29:
</span></em><strong><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">We
have heard plenty of vocal support in this
group to [differentiate between legal and
natural persons in a mandatory fashion], but
to date the RrSG have not heard any
compelling reason to create policy that
makes this dramatic shift to the domain
registration landscape.</span></i></strong><br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">We
agree. </span></strong> Nothing will stop
other stakeholder groups from demanding further
disclosure of data, and lobbying other parties
including governments.
<strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">What
we can do in ICANN is come up with the best
solution for us at this time.</span></strong><br>
<br>
Many thanks to the members of our NCSG EPDP Team
for your hard work. This has been a long road.
With new studies, new information and legal
opinions, we think we have a clear and strategic
path forward. We believe our position to be
closely aligned with that of the Registrar
Stakeholder Group, which they articulated on April
29 (see below).<br>
<br>
Best, Kathy Kleiman and Stephanie Perrin<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------<br>
The Registrar Stakeholder Group issued their
position statement on Thursday (4/29):<br>
<br>
The members of the RrSG EPDP team have
participated in this process in good faith since
day one and will continue to do so; however, we
need to be crystal clear that members of our
Stakeholder Group, whom we are here to represent,
have voiced and recently reconfirmed their strong
opposition to any policy coming out of this group
that makes differentiation between natural and
legal persons for domain registrations mandatory.<br>
<br>
We have heard plenty of vocal support in this
group to do just that, but to date the RrSG have
not heard any compelling reason to create policy
that makes this dramatic shift to the domain
registration landscape. The Contracted Party can
make the most accurate assessment of their own
legal, technical, and commercial risks and
obligations, and is the only party that can
determine what level of risk they should assume.
The scope of this EPDP Phase 2a is to consider if
changes are required for the relevant
Recommendation; it has become clear through this
process that no such changes are required<br>
<br>
To the extent this group can focus its energies on
guidance to contracted parties which choose on
their own to make this differentiation, we
continue to believe that is a worthwhile exercise.
We believe that guidance materials including
educational information provided by ICANN in
multiple languages would help contracted parties
educate registrants and this would be a valuable
effort.<br>
<br>
That said, based on analysis done by our
stakeholder group's members, we reject the notion
that the majority of registered domain names are
registered to legal entities. We further remind
this team that we have not yet seen evidence that
increased publication of registration data will
address any of the problems which have been
mentioned so far in this phase, and that the
registration data is reliably and promptly
available to those who do have a legitimate reason
to access it.<br>
<br>
Finally we note that this statement represents the
official position of the Registrar Stakeholder
group, and statements from members of other groups
participating in the EPDP do not represent our
group’s position.<br>
<br>
<em><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">(Source:
Transcript of EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call, 29
April 2021, Statement of Volker Greimann on
behalf of the Registrars Stakeholder Group
read into the record)</span></em></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>