<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Good question <span class="gmail_chip gmail_plusreply" dir="auto"><a href="mailto:pedrodeperdigaolana@gmail.com" style="color:#15c;text-decoration:underline">@Pedro de Perdigão Lana</a></span><span> . Such has never been brought up in my 4 years as councillor. But I will check with staff if there has been a similar situation in the past.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span><br></span></div><div dir="auto">I am also keen to hear the thoughts of other members.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Warmly, <br>Tomslin</div><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 08:04 Pedro de Perdigão Lana, <<a href="mailto:pedrodeperdigaolana@gmail.com">pedrodeperdigaolana@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi everyone,</div><div><br></div><div>Just one doubt I had reading this: does the IRT formally have the competence to decide issues like this? In this case, to presume the interpretation related to a potential drafting error. Although on the merits there is an argument for improving privacy, it looks important to understand whether there are similar precedents in relation to past ICANN procedures or whether this would be a new situation. If the answer is "this is new", wouldn't referring the issue to the GNSO Council be more (procedurally) appropriate, to avoid opening doors that would possibly expand IRTs remit?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cordially,<br></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><b>Pedro de Perdigão Lana</b><br></font></font></span><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://www.nic.br/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Lawyer</a>, </font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://www.gedai.com.br/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">GEDAI/UFPR</a> Researcher</font></font></span></font></font></span></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2">PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)</font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"> </font></font></span></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"></span></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2">Coordination/Board/EC @</font></font></span><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"> </font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><a href="https://isoc.org.br/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ISOC BR</a></span></font><font size="1"><font size="2">,</font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"> </font></font><font size="2"><a href="https://www.ncuc.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCUC</a> & <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCSG </a>(ICANN), <a href="https://youthlacigf.lat/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">YouthLACIGF</a>,</font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"> <a href="https://ioda.org.br/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">IODA</a> and </font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://br.creativecommons.net/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">CC Brasil</a></font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><br></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"></span></div><div><font size="1"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif">This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by mistake, please reply informing it.</span></font></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Em qui., 28 de nov. de 2024 às 09:07, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <<a href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>> escreveu:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all</div><div><br></div><div>Here is another summary I would like you to read and provide feedback on. The details are well summarised in the below message but it is regarding how the
EPDP Phase 1 IRT believes the
billing contact data should be treated in the Registration Data Policy. </div><div><br></div><div>Specifically, we as NCSG have to answer the following question: <b>does your group believe that (1) billing contact data was in scope for the EPDP Temp Spec policy development? If yes, does your group agree that because billing contact data was within the EPDP Team’s scope, (2) there was a drafting error in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report because the intention of the recommendations, by not including a recommendation concerning the collection, escrow, etc of billing contact data was that the collection and retention of billing contact data should be optional and not mandatory?</b> <br></div><div><br></div><div>Our NCUC members to the IRT are
Stephanie Perrin, Afi Edoh and Wisdom Donkor who might perhaps be able to help provide more details if anyone has questions.</div><div><br> </div><div><div>Warmly,<br></div>Tomslin<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Caitlin Tubergen via council</b> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:council@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">council@icann.org</a>></span><br>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 09:42<br>Subject: [council] EPDP Phase 1 RegData Implementation - Billing Contact Issue Summary<br>To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">council@gnso.icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br></div><br><br><div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">Dear Councilors,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">During the ICANN81</span><a href="https://icann81.sched.com/event/1p2Gu/gnso-council-wrap-up" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">GNSO Council Wrap-Up</span></a><span style="color:black">, Thomas Rickert provided an update regarding the implementation of EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 recommendations. Thomas is the current GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP Temp
Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">For background, the</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">Registration Data Policy</span></a><span style="color:black"> was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of 21 August 2025. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">The</span><a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-2-20feb19-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations</span></a><span style="color:black"> do not reference billing contact data, and the
</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">Registration Data Policy</span></a><span style="color:black"> also makes no reference to billing contact data.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">Billing contact data, however, is referenced in the</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreement-21jan24-en.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">Registrar Accreditation Agreement</span></a><span style="color:black"> (RAA) in § 3.4.1.3 and in the
</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreement-21jan24-en.html#data-retention" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">Data Retention Specification</span></a><span style="color:black"> in §1.1.2 – §1.1.5. The billing contact
data is also referenced in the existing </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">Registrar Data Escrow Specifications</span></a><span style="color:black">. ICANN’s publication of
</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-14aug24-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">updated Registrar Data Escrow Specifications</span></a><span style="color:black"> in August triggered a discussion within the EPDP Phase 1 IRT
regarding the Registration Data Policy’s intended impact on the RAA requirements concerning the billing contact data fields.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">Generally speaking, unless in conflict with or otherwise modified by a policy recommendation, current contractual requirements and consensus policy requirements remain in place following the publication of a new
policy. For that reason, ICANN org informed the IRT on 8 August 2024 that billing contact data must still be collected and retained pursuant to current RAA requirements.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">In response, some registrar members of the IRT expressed the view that the absence of a reference to billing contact data was a drafting error, and the EPDP Team intended for the collection of billing contact
data to be optional and not mandatory. The registrar IRT members noted the reference to “billing contact” within charter question b1, which provides, “b1) What data should registrars be required to collect for each of the following contacts: Registrant, Tech,
Admin, Billing?” Because billing contact is referenced in this charter question but the EPDP Team did not provide a recommendation regarding mandatory (or optional) collection of the billing contact, the registrar position is that the billing contact is no
longer required to be collected. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">On 25 September 2024, there was a
</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2024-09-25+Registration+Data+Policy+Implementation+IRT+Meeting" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">special meeting of the IRT</span></a><span style="color:black"> to discuss the topic of billing contact. While
no objection to the registrar view was raised during the special meeting, it is unclear at this stage whether this is a broadly supported view of the IRT, as the majority of stakeholder groups did not have IRT members present at the special meeting. Specifically,
members from the BC, GAC, IPC, ISPCP, IPC, NCSG, and SSAC were </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2024-09-25+Registration+Data+Policy+Implementation+IRT+Meeting?preview=/375914530/379191359/Attendance%20Reg%20Data%20Pol%20IRT%2025%20Sep%2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">not
in attendance</span></a><span style="color:black">. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">It is worth noting that billing contact information is not referenced in the Temporary Specification, nor is it part of the RDDS specification in the RAA, so it could be argued that billing contact data was not
in scope for EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 policy development. It could also be argued that the drafting error was in the EPDP charter, as billing contact should not have been referenced since it is not part of the Temporary Specification. It is also worth noting
that there are other elements within the RAA and Data Retention Specification that were not part of the Temporary Specification and are still required.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">Thomas provided a high-level overview during the wrap-up session, and noted that some IRT members believe this drafting error is noncontroversial. However, Thomas noted that in the interest of transparency, all
Councilors should consult with their respective groups to ensure that others are properly informed and agree with the interpretation raised by the registrars within the IRT. Thomas has also requested that further discussion of billing contact data within the
Registration Data Policy be added as a discussion item to the GNSO Council’s December meeting.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">Accordingly, please check in with your groups regarding the treatment of billing contact data in the
</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">Registration Data Policy</span></a><span style="color:black">.
<b><u>Specifically, does your group believe that (1) billing contact data was in scope for the EPDP Temp Spec policy development? If yes, does your group agree that because billing contact data was within the EPDP Team’s scope, (2) there was a drafting error
in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report because the intention of the recommendations, by not including a recommendation concerning the collection, escrow, etc of billing contact data was that the collection and retention of billing contact data should be optional
and not mandatory? Note: If, as a matter of ICANN Consensus Policy this was the intended outcome, this interpretation would change current contractual requirements for registrars. </u></b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="color:black">We invite Thomas and other councilors to provide additional context. Please feel free to provide thoughts via the list in advance of the December meeting, and please be prepared to discuss next steps during the
19 December Council meeting.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Kind regards, and Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Caitlin<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list -- <a href="mailto:council@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">council@icann.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href="mailto:council-leave@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">council-leave@icann.org</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>