- Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl - lists.icann.org

Notes, Action Items from 22 August PP IRT Call [PLEASE complete poll]
by Amy Bivins Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Hello, All, Thanks so much for your active participation on yesterday's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those of you would could not attend, I encourage you to please listen to the recording, available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/22+August+2017. Several action items resulted from this meeting: * IRT: Please complete this linked poll regarding the proposed edit to the LEA framework, specification 4 of the draft PPAA, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2F5BGBG, no later than next Monday, 28 August. Please read the background before the first question carefully. * The IRT discussion on this topic yesterday continued to demonstrate a division among the group regarding this proposed edit. The results of this poll will not be counted as a vote but are intended to ensure that we have a complete record and understanding of all IRT participants' opinions on this topic. This is important. Please participate. There are only two substantive questions. * IRT: Please provide any additional feedback no later than Monday, 28 August, on the "record-keeping" topic, issue 24 on the issues list. * IRT: Please provide any additional feedback you have no later than Monday, 28 August, on the IP framework (issue 20 on the issues list), particularly the issue raised on the call, regarding the proposed addition of language from the framework's introduction in the Final Report. * IRT: Please provide any additional feedback you have no later than Monday, 28 August, on the "business dealings" section of the PPAA draft (issue 25 on the issues list). * ICANN will review the "business dealings" section of the PPAA draft, per IRT feedback, to ensure that the language (when read in consultation with the rest of the contract) will not result in duplicative notice requirements (ie, customers should receive one notice (e.g. data accuracy notices), either from the provider or registrar-not both). Finally, you will notice that we are moving fairly quickly to the end of the issues list (albeit with many action items to follow up on). Please send any additional points related to the PPAA draft that you would like to discuss to the list. Once we reach the end of the issues list, if we have no further suggestions from you, we will move on to other topics. For next week's call, we are planning to discuss data escrow and RDDS labeling. I will confirm this by Monday morning Eastern Time at the latest (we are currently working to finalize an updated draft specification for your review). 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>

5 9

Action items from today's PP IRT call
by Amy Bivins Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Hello, All, Thanks so much for your participation on today's IRT call. I've updated the issues list (attached) with the input we received on this morning's call. We have several outstanding discussion topics that we are requesting your feedback on via the list this week (requested deadline of 21 August): 1. Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 1: definitions (outlined in detail in attached slides from this week's meeting) 1. Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 3: amendment/negotiation process. Edits were proposed by ICANN this week to allow proposed amendments to the PPAA to be considered by a working group convened by the GNSO or the Privacy/Proxy Stakeholder Group (if one is ever created). During today's call, it was recommended by an IRT member that this should be limited, such that if there is ever a stakeholder group, its members can participate in the GNSO-convened group, but would not replace the GNSO-convened group in the PPAA amendment negotiation process. For reference, for the RAA negotiation process, the "working group" for negotiations is convened by the RrSG (See 2013 RAA Section 7.4.1). IRT feedback is requested on the proposed edits as well as the recommendation raised on today's call. 1. Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 21: RAA synchronization. The IRT was asked whether any future updates to the RAA involving sections that are adapted in the PPAA should result in automatic updates to the PPAA. It was recommended on today's call that updates could be synchronized with the PPAA, but this should not be automatic. Any proposed updates to the PPAA as a result of RAA updates should be presented to the working group (referenced in Item 2, above) for approval. IRT feedback is sought on the topic of synchronization in general, as well as the recommendation made on today's call. In addition, feedback is sought on whether, if we do decide to have an approval mechanism before changes go into effect, the working group should always be the approval mechanism or whether other means, such as a public comment forum, could also be used. 1. Leading into next week's continued discussion of the LEA framework, additional IRT feedback is requested on the proposed edit from the PSWG, that would reduce the time to review requests from LEA from 2 business days to 24 hours (See PPAA Issue 19 in attached issues list). IRT feedback on this topic has not produced a clear consensus on this topic. Please consider this issue and come prepared to discuss this topic on next week's call, with the goal of reaching a resolution on this topic. 1. Customer Data Accuracy (See item 15 in issues list). It was noted on-list and on today's call that the requirements in the draft Customer Data Accuracy Specification and Section 3.5.4.1, including pending updates based on IRT input, may result in some inconsistencies or lack of clarity surrounding requirements for providers. Please provide any further input on this topic. ICANN will revisit these provisions, taking into account IRT feedback, and propose language to clarify these requirements. Thanks so much in advance for your consideration of these items. For next week's call, we are planning to discuss: * The PSWG-proposed update to the LEA framework, * Proposed next steps on data retention based on IRT feedback, * The IP framework, * ICANN reporting requirements, and * Any IRT feedback on the "business dealings" section of the PPAA (section 3.5)(this was a topic suggested by an IRT member). If you have questions or comments in the interim, please don't hesitate to send them to the list. 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>

3 4

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call
by Margie Milam Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Hi- In advance of tomorrow’s call, here are a few issues to consider related to the IP related text: * The Final Report states: Given the balance that this Policy attempts to strike, evidence of the use of high-volume, automated electronic processes for sending Requests or responses to Requests (without human review) to the systems of Requesters, Providers, or Customers in performing any of the steps in the processes outlined in this Policy shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this Policy. I may have missed this, but it seems the Agreement should include an obligation on the Provider to conduct a human review of the requests. Also, is there language regarding the rebuttable presumption of noncompliance if there are high-volume automated electronic responses to a request? * How does the IP requester know where to send the requests or that the domain name is a privacy/proxy registration? Specification 3 doesn’t seem to include a unique label for P/P Providers nor does it include the Abuse Point of Contact information for the Provider. All the best, Margie From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call Hello, All, Thanks so much for your participation on today’s IRT call. I’ve updated the issues list (attached) with the input we received on this morning’s call. We have several outstanding discussion topics that we are requesting your feedback on via the list this week (requested deadline of 21 August): 1. Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 1: definitions (outlined in detail in attached slides from this week’s meeting) 1. Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 3: amendment/negotiation process. Edits were proposed by ICANN this week to allow proposed amendments to the PPAA to be considered by a working group convened by the GNSO or the Privacy/Proxy Stakeholder Group (if one is ever created). During today’s call, it was recommended by an IRT member that this should be limited, such that if there is ever a stakeholder group, its members can participate in the GNSO-convened group, but would not replace the GNSO-convened group in the PPAA amendment negotiation process. For reference, for the RAA negotiation process, the “working group” for negotiations is convened by the RrSG (See 2013 RAA Section 7.4.1). IRT feedback is requested on the proposed edits as well as the recommendation raised on today’s call. 1. Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 21: RAA synchronization. The IRT was asked whether any future updates to the RAA involving sections that are adapted in the PPAA should result in automatic updates to the PPAA. It was recommended on today’s call that updates could be synchronized with the PPAA, but this should not be automatic. Any proposed updates to the PPAA as a result of RAA updates should be presented to the working group (referenced in Item 2, above) for approval. IRT feedback is sought on the topic of synchronization in general, as well as the recommendation made on today’s call. In addition, feedback is sought on whether, if we do decide to have an approval mechanism before changes go into effect, the working group should always be the approval mechanism or whether other means, such as a public comment forum, could also be used. 1. Leading into next week’s continued discussion of the LEA framework, additional IRT feedback is requested on the proposed edit from the PSWG, that would reduce the time to review requests from LEA from 2 business days to 24 hours (See PPAA Issue 19 in attached issues list). IRT feedback on this topic has not produced a clear consensus on this topic. Please consider this issue and come prepared to discuss this topic on next week’s call, with the goal of reaching a resolution on this topic. 1. Customer Data Accuracy (See item 15 in issues list). It was noted on-list and on today’s call that the requirements in the draft Customer Data Accuracy Specification and Section 3.5.4.1, including pending updates based on IRT input, may result in some inconsistencies or lack of clarity surrounding requirements for providers. Please provide any further input on this topic. ICANN will revisit these provisions, taking into account IRT feedback, and propose language to clarify these requirements. Thanks so much in advance for your consideration of these items. For next week’s call, we are planning to discuss: * The PSWG-proposed update to the LEA framework, * Proposed next steps on data retention based on IRT feedback, * The IP framework, * ICANN reporting requirements, and * Any IRT feedback on the “business dealings” section of the PPAA (section 3.5)(this was a topic suggested by an IRT member). If you have questions or comments in the interim, please don’t hesitate to send them to the list. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMFAg&…>

2 1

Action items, request for additional IRT input after 8 August IRT call
by Amy Bivins Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording, which is available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/08+August+2017 Attached, you will find an updated "issues list" that includes a detailed summary of all the PPAA-related topics discussed to date, including those raised on the call today. A very short summary of the input received today and the significant outstanding questions is also available below. Please review the topics discussed today and submit any additional feedback you have no later than next Monday, 14 August. Your feedback is especially needed on the LEA Framework and Data Retention topics. Proposed upcoming IRT discussion schedule: 15 August: PPAA definitions, PPAA amendment/negotiation process (updated per IRT feedback), RAA synchronization, request suggestions for future discussion topics 22 August: LEA framework, data retention, IP Framework, business dealings 29 August: Data escrow, labeling (new draft specification modeled on RAA requirements to be provided, per IRT feedback) Summary of Discussion on Today's Call * PPAA Issues 18-19: LEA Framework: * Updates to definitions to conform with rest of PPAA: no further edits suggested by IRT * Proposed edit to Section 3.2.1 from PSWG, editing the section as follows: [cid:image002.png@01D3105C.76955490] * Summary of proposed edit: This would reduce the period required for a provider to initiate a review of a law enforcement request from 2 business days to 24 hours. However, this would also eliminate any requirement for the provider to respond to the LEA requester within 24 hours. * PSWG rationale: This edit was made to align more closely with RAA requirement (See Section 3.18.2<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> RAA-"Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report." * Summary of IRT feedback thus far: Some IRT members said 24 hours is too short a period; possibly 1 business day would be preferable; Other IRT members supported edit and alignment with RAA. See issues list for detailed feedback. * PPAA Issues 4, 23: Data Retention Requirements * Summary of IRT Feedback: Proposed required data elements appear generally OK; retention period appears to create issues under global data protection laws notwithstanding proposed reduction from RAA's 2-year requirement to 1-year requirement proposed for PPAA * Proposed solution raised by IRT member: Edit to require retention based on maximum period allowed under applicable law. * PPAA Issue 12: Accreditation Agreement Term * Summary of IRT Feedback: IRT members who commented supported the inclusion of a 5-year term for the contract, as is done for the RAA. * Customer Data Accuracy Specification: * Summary of IRT Feedback: Questions raised regarding how third-party providers would comply with these requirements. * IRT is requested to comment further on this specification, specifically, if a third-party provider cannot comply with these requirements, how should this be handled in the contract? 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>

3 5

Updates, action items following 1 August PP IRT call
by Amy Bivins Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. We made a lot of progress. If you were unable to attend, the recording and materials are available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/01+August+2017. I've updated the issues list (attached) for the topics discussed today (Issues 5, 6, 9, 10, 13) based on your feedback. IRT Action Items 1. Please provide any additional input you have on issues 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13 no later than next Monday, 7 August. In particular, please consider the following questions that arose during today's meeting: * Regarding issue 6 (Section 3.5.4.1 of the draft PPAA), should we consider reducing the required period from 15 days to some shortened period? If yes, do you have recommendations for what the shortened time period should be? * Regarding issue 13 (PPAA section 5.7.1): (i) Is it feasible for a registrar to block new registrations from a suspended provider (provided that provider is identified by its ICANN ID during the registration process)? (IRT input on this point has been mixed); (ii) If the answer to (i) is yes, is any additional language required with respect to Point 5 raised during the call ("sounds like we need an EPP for PP Providers")? 2. Please complete the IRT poll re: data escrow and additional PPAA discussion topics no later than Friday, 4 August, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS Next Week Next week, we plan to discuss Issues 4 and 23(data retention), 12 (accreditation term), 15 (Customer Data Accuracy Spec), 17-19 (LEA Specification). We will discuss data retention and the LEA specification first, to ensure we can discuss both of these while we have our PSWG colleagues on the call. Thanks in advance for your continued consideration of the issues discussed today and your completion of the poll. If you have questions or comments before our next meeting, please send them to the list. 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>

7 10

Reminder--last day for IRT poll, please review topics for next week's call
by Amy Bivins Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 2017

Hello, All: I hope you are well. This is a reminder to please complete the IRT poll no later than your EOD today, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS. Also, in preparation for our meeting on Tuesday, please review the following sections of the PPAA draft and related issues on the issues list: * Data Retention Specification and PPAA Section 3.2 (issues 4 and 23 on the issues list); * The LEA specification (issues 17-19 on the issues list); * Issue 12 on the issues list (re: the term of the accreditation agreement); and * The Customer Data Accuracy Specification (issue 15 on the issues list). We may not make it through all these topics, but we'll get as far as we can. If you have questions or comments on these between now and then, please share them with the list. Thanks, and have a great weekend! 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

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Topics for tomorrow's PP IRT meeting
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Thank you Lindsay, We will note your apology for today's meeting. Kind regards, Michelle From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lindsay Hamilton-Reid <Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid(a)fasthosts.com<mailto:Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@fasthosts.com>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:42 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Topics for tomorrow's PP IRT meeting Hi Amy Please accept my apologies for today, I am stuck in another meeting. Many thanks Lindsay From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: 24 July 2017 13:17 To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Topics for tomorrow's PP IRT meeting Hello, All, At tomorrow's privacy/proxy IRT meeting (1400 UTC), we will be discussing: * The data escrow specification in the draft PPAA; and * The issues raised last week regarding the amendment process in the draft PPAA. We will do a live poll to rank the PPAA issues that have been raised to date for discussion (by staff and IRT members) so that we can create a schedule for these discussions. I hope you all can make it. I've attached an updated issues list to add the items raised on the list over the 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

Topics for tomorrow's PP IRT meeting
by Amy Bivins Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Hello, All, At tomorrow's privacy/proxy IRT meeting (1400 UTC), we will be discussing: * The data escrow specification in the draft PPAA; and * The issues raised last week regarding the amendment process in the draft PPAA. We will do a live poll to rank the PPAA issues that have been raised to date for discussion (by staff and IRT members) so that we can create a schedule for these discussions. I hope you all can make it. I've attached an updated issues list to add the items raised on the list over the 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>

2 1

Action items (including poll) from today's PP IRT call
by Amy Bivins July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. I've attached an updated issues list that includes notes from our discussions today. To summarize for those who could not attend, we discussed the draft PPAA data escrow specification, amendment process, and priorities for upcoming IRT discussions regarding the agreement. To ensure we have a complete record of IRT member views surrounding the data escrow specification, we are re-polling the group. Please complete this poll no later than next Friday, 4 August. We are allowing over a week to complete this poll to ensure that all IRT members have adequate time to consider this issue and provide your input. There is only one substantive question. The results of this poll, coupled with the IRT discussions on the topic to date, will be used to determine the final IRT view on this topic. Thus, it is important that you participate if you want your opinion heard. The poll is available at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS. As a reminder on the background of this provision, the Final Report does not explicitly mention data escrow, but seems to contemplate that data escrow would be an element of this accreditation program. The 2013 RAA's interim specification on privacy and proxy registration<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri…>s includes data escrow requirements. IRT members in attendance at the 28 February IRT meeting and discussing the topic on-list confirmed that this program should have data escrow requirements built into it, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/28+February+2017 The poll also asks you to identify other sections of the PPAA that you would like to discuss in detail in an upcoming IRT meeting. However, please note that any and all comments related to the PPAA draft are also welcome on the list anytime. Based on the IRT discussion and poll today, we are planning to discuss the following topics in August. Please consult the attached issues list to see specific questions related to this topic: 1 August: Provider Suspension (Issue 13); Contact Information (Issue 9); Reveal Requirements (Issue 10); Code of Conduct (Issue 5); Domain Name Cancellation (Issue 6) 8 August: LEA Framework Specification (Issues 17-19); Data Retention (Issues 4, 23) (This is pending confirmation of PSWG availability to attend this meeting) 15 August: Definitions (Issue 1); Amendment Process (Issues 2, 3, pending updates following 25 July IRT discussion); RAA Synchronization (Issue 21) 22 August: Any issues not reached above, plus additional topics recommended by IRT in poll and on-list 29 August: Data Escrow (Issue 14, pending results of IRT discussions and poll); Labeling (Issue 16) Please send any additional input on the topics discussed this week to the list prior to our next meeting. For next week, please come prepared to discuss the topics identified above under 1 August (and please feel free to share any comments with the group beforehand on-list). 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>

2 1

Agreement comments
by theo geurts July 25, 2017

July 25, 2017

Hi all, Attached my comments on the agreement. Overall the agreement is in pretty good shape. A few sections are somewhat problematic. Section 2.3 Domain Name Resolves to Website Where Trademark Is Allegedly Infringed coupled with Section 3. Provider Action on Request. Perhaps it is me, but I have this fear that these two sections will create a lot of manual labor on the Registrar/provider side? Or has the potential to create a ton of work. Again maybe it is me, some input from Registrars or WG members is very welcome. Perhaps this was the intention of the WG; I am not sure. SPECIFICATION 6: DATA RETENTION SPECIFICATION Maybe I just have grown a healthy distaste when it comes to waiver processes, but do we require a data retention spec for a privacy service? Thanks, Theo Ps, that agreement is a very long read......

3 2