May 2017 - Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call
by Amy Bivins June 5, 2017

June 5, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February-this came up briefly on today's call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call-I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true-there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today's call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the "or" is to accommodate privacy services where the customer's name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider's name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the "unaffiliated provider" issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don't hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

8 14

Agenda for Privacy/Proxy IRT call, 30 May
by Amy Bivins May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Dear Colleagues, On our next Privacy/Proxy IRT call, scheduled for Tuesday, 30 May, at 1400 UTC, we will discuss the following: * Update regarding the Registrar Subteam's work on RDDS labeling (Francisco Arias, Technical Services, will be joining us for this discussion); * Discussion of IRT feedback on draft applicant guide. If there are any additional topics you wish to raise, please let me know by responding to the list. I summarize the input we have received to date on the draft applicant guide, but because Monday is a holiday and the meeting is early Tuesday in the US, today is the cutoff for sharing material that will be incorporated into the slide deck. Thanks so much for your participation, and I look forward to speaking with you on Tuesday. Have a great weekend! Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Materials for PP IRT Review, Meeting Next Week Canceled to Provide Additional Review Time
by Amy Bivins May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on yesterday's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. The meeting recording and materials are available on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/16+May+2017 As a reminder, we are requesting your feedback on the draft v1 applicant guide, distributed to the IRT last week and also attached. Following our discussion yesterday, I created two new documents to aid your review of the draft applicant guide: (1) a comparison document that shows the differences between the current ICANN application for registrar accreditation and the draft v1 application for privacy/proxy service provider accreditation (attached). (2) An annotated version of the draft v1 application for privacy/proxy service provider accreditation (attached), noting questions that are proposed in response to a specific recommendation from the Final Report. As you are reviewing these documents, please consider the following questions: (a) Is this proposed process consistent with the intent of the Policy recommendations? (b) Do the proposed evaluation criteria seem to be consistent with the intent of the Policy recommendations? (c) Are there areas where ICANN should consider streamlining the evaluation for registrar-Affiliated providers? (d) Are there processes/criteria that may require "implementation adjustment" (as noted in p. 6 of the Final Report) in the case of providers that are not affiliated with ICANN-accredited registrars? (e) Should ICANN consider reducing the number of evaluation questions and instead ensure that the applicant understands and agrees to comply with the relevant requirements via the required applicant educational program (and screening test, as discussed in April?). If so, which questions do you believe could/should be evaluated in this manner? Next week's meeting, scheduled for 23 May, is canceled to provide additional time for this review. Our next meeting will be on 30 May 2017. Please send your feedback on these documents to the list no later than your EOD 25 May. If you have questions or comments between now and then, please don't hesitate to reply to the list or contact me directly. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

6 8

Fwd: [Ext] Update: PPSAI Disclosure Framework
by Amy Bivins May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Please see the update below from Nick Shorey regarding the timeline of the GAC's review of the PSWG proposal. Best, Amy Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Nick Shorey <lists(a)nickshorey.com<mailto:lists@nickshorey.com>> Date: May 12, 2017 at 9:56:04 AM EDT To: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Update: PPSAI Disclosure Framework Hi Amy, Hope you're well. Please can you share this update with the members of the IRT. FYI I'm still not receiving any IRT emails on this address - and none caught in my spam - can you double check I'm on the mailing list for lists(a)nickshorey.com<mailto:lists@nickshorey.com>? The draft principles developed by the PSWG for the disclosure framework has now been circulated to the GAC for approval. Due to a busy schedule of ITU meetings affecting many GAC representatives, the deadline has been extended to 2nd June. If approval is given, I then hope to issue this to the IRT on 3rd June. Please accept my apologies for the delays. Kind regards, Nick Nick Shorey Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 Email: lists(a)nickshorey.com<mailto:lists@nickshorey.com> Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_nic…> Web: www.nickshorey.com[nickshorey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickshorey.com&d=Dw…>

1 0

Materials, questions for 16 May Privacy/Proxy IRT Call
by Amy Bivins May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Dear Colleagues, I hope you are well. In advance of our call on Tuesday, 16 May, at 15:00 UTC, I am attaching a draft applicant guide, which we will be discussing on the call. Please review this document prior to the call. The document outlines a proposed application process and preliminary evaluation criteria based on the initial discussions we had in April. The document includes a draft application for accreditation that is modeled on the registrar accreditation application, for discussion purposes. As you are reviewing this document, please consider the following questions: (1) Is this proposed process consistent with the intent of the Policy recommendations? (2) Do the proposed evaluation criteria seem to be consistent with the intent of the Policy recommendations? (3) Are there areas where ICANN should consider streamlining the evaluation for registrar-Affiliated providers? (4) Are there processes/criteria that may require "implementation adjustment" (as noted in p. 6 of the Final Report) in the case of providers that are not affiliated with ICANN-accredited registrars? (5) Should ICANN consider reducing the number of evaluation questions and instead ensure that the applicant understands and agrees to comply with the relevant requirements via the required applicant educational program (and screening test, as discussed in April?). If so, which questions do you believe could/should be evaluated in this manner? We look forward to speaking with you next week. On the call, I'll provide an overview of the document and then open the call up for IRT discussion on the questions above and any other feedback you have on the document. I encourage you to share any initial thoughts you may have on these questions on the list prior to the call, if you are able, to give other IRT members time to consider issues raised prior to the call. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Results of IRT poll on PP de-accreditation, next steps
by Amy Bivins May 4, 2017

May 4, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation in last week's Privacy/Proxy IRT call and the recent poll regarding Privacy/Proxy Provider de-accreditation. A summary of the input received on the call and in the poll is attached. Based on this initial feedback, ICANN is developing an initial proposal for discussion based on the proposed "Option 1." We aim to have this ready for continued IRT discussions in late May. As a reminder, our IRT meeting for next week, 9 May, is canceled due to the GDD Summit. We will re-convene on 16 May. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0