There are a number of issues. I suspect that the missing appendix gives additional details, so I see no purpose in a detailed analysis until we have it.

What James is asking suggested that the P/P IRT is one possible path (one I suspect I would not favour upon further reflection) but also says that one of the new policy processes could be used. He also says discussions should include other interested parties.

Alan

At 03/12/2016 09:19 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:

Thanks Alan

My concern here is that the issue might be resolved by an Implementation team, with no ALAC members on it. You are correct in saying that the issue is not just about a change in the nature of service provided by one registrar. The other issue is when a customer of a P/P service wants to transfer to ANOTHER registrar.   That issue was raised and talked through at length in a day long F2F meeting in LA. At the time, it was James who observed that maintaining the privacy details of a registrant in that situation is difficult because of the accuracy obligations on registrars under the RAA. And while we spent time on the issue, it was not resolved. So an implementation team is the not best place for resolution - it really is a policy issue.

No sure where that takes us, but it is yet another wrinkle in the whole privacy discussion - and all the more reason for progress on the RDS WG

Holly
On 4 Dec 2016, at 9:53 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:

Interesting. I agree that the PDP did not contemplate this particular case. But it is less than clear what the process is to fix it, if indeed a fix is required.

I don't think the letter is entirely accurate, as it describes only the case of a P/P provider that is the Registrar itself. They may be the case in a large percentage of such registrations, but is not the only case. In fact, another of the IRTP PDPs spent a LOT of time focusing on cases where the P/P provider is unrelated to the registrar.

I am going to reach out to James on this and will get back.

I note that the letter refers to an attached Appendix A which outlines four use cases. The Appendix is not attached to the letter as posted by ICANN.

Alan

At 03/12/2016 05:17 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

Dear ALAC,

The Board has received the following correspondence from the GNSO Council regarding IRTP Part C:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-01dec16-en.pdf

Please consider whether you wish to provide comment or advice to the Board and/or Staff.

Best regards,

Rinalia

--
Rinalia

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
         1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:kk7h51U5HMSVMcmTmVcTMaOdN8fnC0vveprZt8BIOBcA9tAA31YQmUPWpF8iNHxrgM4dxeqoUumGpQ3DsP31l4VMaQUPELFCTMtkoRQ1qr2nkmgOW3Mnlm85fJUhJUD2nLMV3PV6Ko9PhQ/3vlAVVyC38utwm9kcGSMNXWIBcW5D2vb1Rdc7Q0uHp+W7LBhgtL/gjU29oq1DUmL6StpNO+J6q9Ta4sJZrLynHVSGOWDL08EyoWDAeJNW5roJTur9QRu0d/LYo2HamuujrW2rgyxezJWURzidEvBOujLNC8bwK6OK6dO5cyOI4FzeGc2GPAs07uxiCU7I+L+zSi469UJWlaZByn+kiz+iqzfps0ypsx3r25A/UxJ1G8StXQ/yNn2ZOjX7K/1l6VGmkioOQ+JlFR6saDx7VrHDeJzQICJIkVt6+KEtpc63PXGZs8M4
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
         ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )