[NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [council] EPDP Phase 1 RegData Implementation - Billing Contact Issue Summary

Sun Dec 8 05:35:18 EET 2024

Hi Pedro,

It appears the short answer to your question is, yes, the IRT can make such
determination. However, in the event of disagreement within the IRT on a
way forward, or the IRT chooses to, they can consult with the GNSO Council
for guidance. Below is further background information on the topic which
might help.:

Dear Tomslin,

Thank you for the question. We’re not aware of an identical situation
having occurred in the past; however, the implementation of the EPDP on the
Temp Spec has raised other questions for the GNSO Council regarding the
intent of the policy recommendations in a few areas:

   - Rec. 7 involved a disagreement within the IRT over the EPDP Team’s
   intent to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy.
   - Rec. 12 was not approved by the Board due to concerns regarding the
   deletion of the Organization field and involved a supplemental
   recommendation approved by the Council, clarifying the intent of the
   recommendation. The supplemental recommendation was adopted
   <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-special-meeting-of-the-icann-board-24-02-2022-en#2.b>
by
   the Board on 24 February 2024.
   - The IRT could not agree on a timeline for response to urgent requests,
   and the Board subsequently expressed concerns
   <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/tsinha-to-dibiase-03june24-en.pdf>
with
   the proposed timeline and the absence of an authoritative, legally
   sufficient cross-border system for validating law enforcement/emergency
   responders. Because Rec. 18, provides in part, “A separate timeline of
   [less than X business days] *will [be] considered* for the response to
   ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence
   is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be
   finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation]”
   (emphasis added), the Registration Data Policy
   <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>
was
   published without reference to a separate timeline requirement for urgent
   requests. This issue is still under discussion among the Board, the GNSO
   Council, and the GAC.

Unlike in the examples referenced above, the billing contact query to the
Council does not involve a question over the interpretation of existing
policy recommendation text; instead, it involves a question of
interpretation of the absence of text. There are examples in the EPDP Phase
1 Final Report where the EPDP Team explicitly recommends changes to certain
data elements; namely, in Rec. 29, the EPDP Team confirms the elimination
of the Administrative Contact field, and Rec. 5 confirms the Registered
Name Holder MAY (but is not required) to provide a Tech Contact to the
Registrar. Billing contact is not referenced in the policy recommendations.

The questions involving Rec. 7 and Rec. 12 were resolved prior to the
publication of the Registration Data Policy
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>,
whereas the question about intended impact to the billing contact was
raised after the publication of the policy.

In previous examples, and in this current example, the GNSO Council is
being consulted under Principle E of the IRT Principles and Guidelines
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf>,
which provides, “In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the
IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN
Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council
liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve
the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such
efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected
to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on
whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using
the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group
Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there
is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO
Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a
determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the
initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff
on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is
agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further
guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require
possible policy discussion.”

We hope this is helpful background information.

Kind regards,

Caitlin

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024, 08:06 Tomslin Samme-Nlar, <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good question @Pedro de Perdigão Lana <pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> .
> 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.
>
> I am also keen to hear the thoughts of other members.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 08:04 Pedro de Perdigão Lana, <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
>> Researcher
>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>> Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
>> <https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
>> YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
>> Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
>> mistake, please reply informing it.
>>
>>
>> Em qui., 28 de nov. de 2024 às 09:07, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
>> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Specifically, we as NCSG have to answer the following question: *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?*
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Warmly,
>>> Tomslin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: Caitlin Tubergen via council <council at icann.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 09:42
>>> Subject: [council] EPDP Phase 1 RegData Implementation - Billing Contact
>>> Issue Summary
>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> During the ICANN81 GNSO Council Wrap-Up
>>> <https://icann81.sched.com/event/1p2Gu/gnso-council-wrap-up>, 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).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For background, the Registration Data Policy
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>
>>> was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of
>>> 21 August 2025.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-2-20feb19-en.pdf>
>>> do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>
>>> also makes no reference to billing contact data.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Billing contact data, however, is referenced in the Registrar
>>> Accreditation Agreement
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreement-21jan24-en.html>
>>> (RAA) in § 3.4.1.3 and in the Data Retention Specification
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registrar-accreditation-agreement-21jan24-en.html#data-retention>
>>> in §1.1.2 – §1.1.5. The billing contact data is also referenced in the
>>> existing Registrar Data Escrow Specifications
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf>.
>>> ICANN’s publication of updated Registrar Data Escrow Specifications
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-14aug24-en.pdf>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 September 2024, there was a special meeting of the IRT
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/2024-09-25+Registration+Data+Policy+Implementation+IRT+Meeting>
>>> 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 not in attendance
>>> <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>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Accordingly, please check in with your groups regarding the treatment of
>>> billing contact data in the Registration Data Policy
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>.
>>> *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. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards, and Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate,
>>>
>>> Caitlin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> council mailing list -- council at icann.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave at icann.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20241208/7bfd45f5/attachment-0001.htm>