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

Thu Nov 28 13:07:40 CET 2024

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20241128/72d67d27/attachment.htm>