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

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

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.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20241201/59bf5777/attachment.htm>