Bc-gnso

Download

bc-gnso@icann.org

March 2014

10 participants
12 discussions

FOR FINAL REVIEW TODAY: BC comment on Status Update from expert working group on gTLD Directory Services
by Steve DelBianco March 3, 2014

March 3, 2014

Attached is the FINAL version of BC comments on the status report from EWG (Expert Working Group) on gTLD Directory Services. There were many excellent comments from BC members during the review period. Over the weekend, Jimson Olufuye, Marilyn Cade, and I did our best to consolidate and reconcile member comments and questions. Please give this a final review and REPLY ALL if we have missed or mis-stated any consensus comments. If there are no objections, I will submit this to the EWG by noon EST on Tuesday 4-Mar. -Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Monday, February 17, 2014 at 10:22 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Status Update from expert working group on gTLD Directory Services Attached are draft BC comments and questions on the Status Update from the expert working group on gTLD Directory Services. The EWG status update is here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/o…>, and described on this page<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm>. Comments close 28-Feb, so today begins a 12-day member review period. Thanks to BC members Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Susan Kawaguchi for this drafting work. Jimson is the CEO of Kontemporary, a systems Integration and ICT Consultancy firm. Though less than 10% of the company revenue is from domain businesses, he has interacted extensively with gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS registry systems. BC members are familiar with Susan's many years of work to improve WHOIS, first with eBay and now with Facebook. Susan was appointed to the WHOIS review team two years ago and is now a member of the EWG on Directory Services. Tim is CEO of DomainTools, whose products partly rely on whois data to help users understand who operates a given website or IP address, and to also make connections between domain names. DomainTools' clients include law enforcement, trademark attorneys, cybercrime investigators, brand protection agents, and a wide variety of professionals in the DNS industry. All BC members are invited to REPLY ALL with edits (using TRACK CHANGES, please). Note that the second half of this draft shows a dialog between Tim and Jimson regarding certain aspects of Directory Services. Based on member feedback, we will refine that section into additional points or questions for the EWG. - Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

2 1

Request for input: GNSO's Working Group on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation
by Steve DelBianco March 1, 2014

March 1, 2014

On our last two BC calls, we asked for volunteers to respond to questions from a PDP working group on issues for the Accreditation of Privacy & Proxy services under the new RAA. (wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43983094>) No volunteers came forward, and the deadline was today. So I responded for the BC, using previously approved BC statements and several questions (not positions) for consideration. See my response below, and please think about volunteering for this working group. If nothing else, please attend their session in Singapore on this issue that’s always been vital to BC member interests. —Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 at 7:01 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm@icann.org>> Subject: Request for input: GNSO's Working Group on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Mary, Thanks for talking today about BC input on privacy/proxy accreditation. Here’s a follow-up for your notes: First, we hope you can find a place for these 4 points the BC adopted regarding the 2013 RAA last May (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…>): The BC notes that the specification only requires that registrars require P/P Providers to post their privacy-proxy terms and conditions on their websites and does not require specific content of what those terms and conditions must entail. The BC would like to see specific content requirements of the terms and conditions as to the following issues: * Specify under what circumstances, pursuant to section 2.4.3, the P/P Provider will relay communications from third parties to the P/P Customer. The BC recommends that the P/P Provider be required at a minimum to relay any communications alleging illegal conduct or consumer fraud (e.g., infringement of intellectual property rights). * Specify under what circumstances and which time frame, pursuant to section 2.4.5, the P/P Provider will be required to reveal the Whois information of the P/P Customer. The BC recommends that if illegal activity is alleged, that the P/P Provider be required to reveal the Whois information and that this revelation occurs within seven (7) business days to conform to section. * The BC recommends that the P/P Provider be required to relay any covered communication within three (3) business days to the P/P Customer. In addition, the BC requests that the specification require that the P/P Provider confirm such relay within 24 hours to the person submitting the report of abuse. * The BC is concerned that there is no means by which to amend the P/P specification. It could be several years before this specification is replaced by a Privacy and Proxy Accreditation Program. Therefore, the BC recommends there be a mechanism to amend the P/P specification as may be considered necessary by the parties and stakeholders. Second, here are some high-level questions (not official positions) the BC offers the WG: ICANN enforcement: Can we create an Accreditation system where ICANN compliance has legal power and leverage to enforce against accredited P/P providers who don’t follow the required RELAY and REVEAL procedures? It’s far better for ICANN Compliance to have direct relationship with P/P Providers, than to rely only upon implied liability for failures to RELAY/REVEAL. Must both Resellers and Registrars use accredited P/P providers? As we discussed tonight, the 2013 RAA (link<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43984221/2013%20RAA.pdf?ve…>) has strong requirements for Resellers to use Accredited P/P providers, but where’s the requirement for Registrars? (see comparison below) 3.12.4 … the Proxy Accreditation Program may require that: (i) proxy and privacy registration services may only be provided in respect of domain name registrations by individuals or entities Accredited by ICANN pursuant to such Proxy Accreditation Program; and (ii) Registrar shall prohibit Resellers from knowingly accepting registrations from any provider of proxy and privacy registration services that is not Accredited by ICANN pursuant the Proxy Accreditation Program. 3.14 Obligations Related to Proxy and Privacy Services. Registrar agrees to comply with any ICANN-adopted Specification or Policy that establishes a Proxy Accreditation Program. Registrar also agrees to reasonably cooperate with ICANN in the development of such program. Lets plan now for the transition to Accredited P/P providers: Can we have a communications plan to alert registrants, registrars, and P/P providers in advance of the date the Accreditation System becomes effective, such that all parties have time and incentive to convert to use only Accredited services? What about Registrars who don’t use the 2013 RAA? Seems that a registrant could avoid the requirement to use only Accredited P/P providers, by sticking with a registrar who has not adopted the 2013 RAA. Any registrar who serves only legacy TLDs could avoid signing the 2013 RAA, right? Must all registrars must convert to 2013 RAA at their next renewal? What is the schedule for expiration of legacy RAA contracts? Thanks again for handling this via phone. We look forward to participating in your WG session in Singapore. Best, Steve Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination Business Constituency From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 5:06 PM To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for input: GNSO's Working Group on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Yes, thanks very much, Elisa and Steve! If you are still planning to provide feedback, I am sure the WG will be happy to receive it even after tomorrow. Perhaps the Singapore meeting could be a date to aim for, since the WG will be having a face to face meeting there and community members are of course welcome to attend it, so having community feedback sent in by then might be helpful. I hope this helps, and thank you! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

1 0