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

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

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Accreditation and de-accreditation of NA-TPPPs
by Chris Pelling April 30, 2017

April 30, 2017

All very good points Theo, food for thought certainly. Sent from Chris on the move! On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:41 PM +0100, "theo geurts" <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: Hi all, I think we are jumping the gun when it comes to the de-accreditation approach as proposed by the poll from last week. While trying to come up with a process, it became rather messy, and eventually, I gave up, as every solution was rather poor. So I reversed the process and started with the accreditation process to see if that would yield better results. The process for registrars offering privacy services or its affiliates is not problematic as we roughly have an idea and we have the WG recommendations. Now the non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP), that is a rather different beast. A classic example for those who spend time in the data metrics policy making WG where you can't qualify or quantify a problem, and you can't turn to the CPH to ask them for information or input due to the fact these TPPP are not regulated at all. NA-TPPP who or what are they? Some of them seem to be on the surface semi-professional while others seem to be a hobby project that grown out of portion and the rest is somewhere in between. The business model they use: You give them your registrant data, and they give you a set of privacy information that you can use at your registrar for free. One has to wonder how sustainable this business model is. How to onboard an NA-TPPP? For Registrars it is easy to get ICANN accredited in a sense, there is a good reason. A Registrar wants to register .com domain names? Then the requirement is to become ICANN accredited and only then you can start the accreditation process with Verisign. Onboarding an NA-TPPPs sounds like selling ice cream on the north pole. We barely have an idea who they are, and for sure they have no idea who or what ICANN is (sorry if I am bursting some bubbles here). Outreach will be problematic. Fees. NA-TPPPs do not sell domain names, they "offer" a service. For every registration and renewal a Registrar pays 18 cents to ICANN, wich goes into the ICANN budget. RDE Though the NA-TTTP might (it better be) have the registrant data, the Registrar is not included in this escrow deposit as they do not know where the privacy service info is used by the registrant. WDRP Audit requirement, who is going to pay for this? ERRP See WDRP ICANN involvement when NA-TPPP goes out of business. Worst case scenario the NA-TPPP gets breached and loses all data and backups. This has happened before in the past. ICANN would have to reach out to all registrants and somehow get Registrars in the mix. I am not sure how this scenario would unfold. Most likely it will be a costly business. Operational concerns IRTP C. This discussion still needs to take place somewhere. But if an NA-TPPP goes down we need to make sure that there is no loss of domain names or exposure of personal data. I think I am going to stop here for now. But I think we still need to get the accreditation process done first and then move on to the de-accreditation part. Best regards, Theo Geurts

1 0

Accreditation and de-accreditation of NA-TPPPs
by theo geurts April 30, 2017

April 30, 2017

Hi all, I think we are jumping the gun when it comes to the de-accreditation approach as proposed by the poll from last week. While trying to come up with a process, it became rather messy, and eventually, I gave up, as every solution was rather poor. So I reversed the process and started with the accreditation process to see if that would yield better results. The process for registrars offering privacy services or its affiliates is not problematic as we roughly have an idea and we have the WG recommendations. Now the non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP), that is a rather different beast. A classic example for those who spend time in the data metrics policy making WG where you can't qualify or quantify a problem, and you can't turn to the CPH to ask them for information or input due to the fact these TPPP are not regulated at all. *NA-TPPP who or what are they?* Some of them seem to be on the surface semi-professional while others seem to be a hobby project that grown out of portion and the rest is somewhere in between. *The business model they use:* You give them your registrant data, and they give you a set of privacy information that you can use at your registrar for free. One has to wonder how sustainable this business model is. *How to onboard an NA-TPPP?* For Registrars it is easy to get ICANN accredited in a sense, there is a good reason. A Registrar wants to register .com domain names? Then the requirement is to become ICANN accredited and only then you can start the accreditation process with Verisign. Onboarding an NA-TPPPs sounds like selling ice cream on the north pole. We barely have an idea who they are, and for sure they have no idea who or what ICANN is (sorry if I am bursting some bubbles here). Outreach will be problematic. *Fees. * NA-TPPPs do not sell domain names, they "offer" a service. For every registration and renewal a Registrar pays 18 cents to ICANN, wich goes into the ICANN budget. *RDE* Though the NA-TTTP might (it better be) have the registrant data, the Registrar is not included in this escrow deposit as they do not know where the privacy service info is used by the registrant. *WDRP* Audit requirement, who is going to pay for this? *ERRP* See WDRP *ICANN involvement when NA-TPPP goes out of business. * Worst case scenario the NA-TPPP gets breached and loses all data and backups. This has happened before in the past. ICANN would have to reach out to all registrants and somehow get Registrars in the mix. I am not sure how this scenario would unfold. Most likely it will be a costly business. *Operational concerns* IRTP C. This discussion still needs to take place somewhere. But if an NA-TPPP goes down we need to make sure that there is no loss of domain names or exposure of personal data. I think I am going to stop here for now. But I think we still need to get the accreditation process done first and then move on to the de-accreditation part. Best regards, Theo Geurts

1 0

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT poll deadline extended to 3 MAY; 2 MAY IRT meeting canceled
by Amy Bivins April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Please note that references to “April” in the subject line and note below should be “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 From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:39 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT poll deadline extended to 3 April; 2 April IRT meeting canceled Hi Darcy and all, Yes, certainly. Everyone, please complete this survey no later than your end of day next Wednesday, April 3. Thank you for your participation and contribution. So far, we have 9 responses that show a clear preference among IRT members to use “option 1” as a starting point in designing the de-accreditation process. Also, next week’s IRT meeting, scheduled for 2 May, will be canceled because we do not have new materials prepared to discuss. I regret that this will result in cancellations two weeks in a row (our meeting on 9 May is canceled due to the GDD Summit), but the break will allow time to ensure we have materials ready to discuss at our next meeting, scheduled for 16 May. Calendar updates will be distributed separately. I apologize for any inconvenience. When we re-convene in mid-May, we expect to be discussing the PSWG proposal, as soon as the PSWG is able to distribute it to the IRT. We will also discuss proposals on accreditation criteria/processes and de-accreditation following the initial IRT discussions, and we expect that we will be able to begin discussing the accreditation agreement shortly, as well. 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> 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 Darcy Southwell Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:24 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT Member Poll Re: De-Accreditation: Please Complete by EOD 28 April Thanks, Theo. I appreciate your suggestion and agree with you about adding option #3 and #4 to the survey. @Amy, I think it would be helpful if you could give us more than 3 days to complete the survey. Can we leave this open for at least a week? Darcy From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of gtheo <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl> > Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> > Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT Member Poll Re: De-Accreditation: Please Complete by EOD 28 April Hi Amy, I am struggling a little with this poll in the sense of committing to it. The mentioned principles recommended by the WG are fine. But the two possible options that ICANN sees as solutions are by no means complete. I appreciate the speediness of staff, but we are talking bout registrants here and procedures and how that will affect them. Option 1 looks like a path forward but requires a lot of work in the sense of getting it right. Option 2 looks not practical, as this procedure applies to registrars and not privacy providers. Making this work will also require a lot of work. Option 3? Work on option 1 and use it as a starting point and develop a framework and map out the actors and the possible scenarios. We will run into a lot of practical issues here, like for example is a 30 days notice enough and how are bounces being dealt with? This looks simple, but it will get complex fast. Option 4, other solutions? Thanks, Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2017-04-25 06:16 PM: Dear Colleagues, Pursuant to our discussion on the Privacy/Proxy IRT call today, please complete the following one-question survey NO LATER THAN YOUR END OF DAY FRIDAY, 28 APRIL, 2017, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3D8F2B5 The introduction to the survey includes the background that was provided on the call. I encourage those who could not attend to also listen to the recording before answering the survey. The recording and other meeting materials are available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/25+April+2017. Thank you for your participation on the call today and also on this poll. We need all of you to participate to ensure we have a clear view of your opinions on this topic. Details about next week's IRT meeting will be provided by the end of this week. 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> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

1 0

IRT poll deadline extended to 3 April; 2 April IRT meeting canceled
by Amy Bivins April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Hi Darcy and all, Yes, certainly. Everyone, please complete this survey no later than your end of day next Wednesday, April 3. Thank you for your participation and contribution. So far, we have 9 responses that show a clear preference among IRT members to use “option 1” as a starting point in designing the de-accreditation process. Also, next week’s IRT meeting, scheduled for 2 May, will be canceled because we do not have new materials prepared to discuss. I regret that this will result in cancellations two weeks in a row (our meeting on 9 May is canceled due to the GDD Summit), but the break will allow time to ensure we have materials ready to discuss at our next meeting, scheduled for 16 May. Calendar updates will be distributed separately. I apologize for any inconvenience. When we re-convene in mid-May, we expect to be discussing the PSWG proposal, as soon as the PSWG is able to distribute it to the IRT. We will also discuss proposals on accreditation criteria/processes and de-accreditation following the initial IRT discussions, and we expect that we will be able to begin discussing the accreditation agreement shortly, as well. 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 From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:24 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT Member Poll Re: De-Accreditation: Please Complete by EOD 28 April Thanks, Theo. I appreciate your suggestion and agree with you about adding option #3 and #4 to the survey. @Amy, I think it would be helpful if you could give us more than 3 days to complete the survey. Can we leave this open for at least a week? Darcy From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of gtheo <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl> > Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> > Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] IRT Member Poll Re: De-Accreditation: Please Complete by EOD 28 April Hi Amy, I am struggling a little with this poll in the sense of committing to it. The mentioned principles recommended by the WG are fine. But the two possible options that ICANN sees as solutions are by no means complete. I appreciate the speediness of staff, but we are talking bout registrants here and procedures and how that will affect them. Option 1 looks like a path forward but requires a lot of work in the sense of getting it right. Option 2 looks not practical, as this procedure applies to registrars and not privacy providers. Making this work will also require a lot of work. Option 3? Work on option 1 and use it as a starting point and develop a framework and map out the actors and the possible scenarios. We will run into a lot of practical issues here, like for example is a 30 days notice enough and how are bounces being dealt with? This looks simple, but it will get complex fast. Option 4, other solutions? Thanks, Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2017-04-25 06:16 PM: Dear Colleagues, Pursuant to our discussion on the Privacy/Proxy IRT call today, please complete the following one-question survey NO LATER THAN YOUR END OF DAY FRIDAY, 28 APRIL, 2017, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3D8F2B5 The introduction to the survey includes the background that was provided on the call. I encourage those who could not attend to also listen to the recording before answering the survey. The recording and other meeting materials are available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/25+April+2017. Thank you for your participation on the call today and also on this poll. We need all of you to participate to ensure we have a clear view of your opinions on this topic. Details about next week's IRT meeting will be provided by the end of this week. 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> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

1 0

IRT Member Poll Re: De-Accreditation: Please Complete by EOD 28 April
by Amy Bivins April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Pursuant to our discussion on the Privacy/Proxy IRT call today, please complete the following one-question survey no later than your end of day Friday, 28 April, 2017, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3D8F2B5 The introduction to the survey includes the background that was provided on the call. I encourage those who could not attend to also listen to the recording before answering the survey. The recording and other meeting materials are available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/25+April+2017. Thank you for your participation on the call today and also on this poll. We need all of you to participate to ensure we have a clear view of your opinions on this topic. Details about next week's IRT meeting will be provided by the end of this week. 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

4 4

Draft Language
by Darcy Southwell April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

Hi, Amy. At the very end of today’s call, Steve Metalitz asked a question in the chat that I think you answered at the very end: steve metalitz: Staff, assuming you get further guidance through a poll or otherwise, when could we expect t see a specific proposal with draft language? *** Amy Bivins 2: Re: Steve, we could draft language for either quickly, but will have questions re: specifics to discuss I think we all realize that questions and discussions will come from the draft language, but I think they will be far more productive if we have draft language to discuss (rather than theoretical concepts). I would encourage staff to draft a proposal based on the PDP recommendations. Then we can have material conversations about how this program. Thanks, Darcy ---------------- Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart

3 2

Recap of 18 April Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting, agenda for 25 April
by Amy Bivins April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Thanks again for a very productive discussion on our Privacy/Proxy IRT call this week. I'm attaching a summary document of the input we received from you related to the PP provider accreditation process. The call recording, slides and attendance list are available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/18+April+2017. The main takeaways from this meeting are as follows: 1. IRT members recommended that ICANN should not limit eligibility for privacy/proxy providers to apply for accreditation in an initial application round at the outset of the program. Thus, if there is an initial applicant round, any provider should be eligible to apply, regardless of whether the provider is affiliated with a registrar. 2. ICANN should consider streamlining the application process for registrar-affiliated privacy/proxy providers, possibly by not requiring those providers to answer questions about/demonstrate understanding of requirements that the registrar is already required to comply with pursuant to the RAA. 3. ICANN should require providers to complete a training course/exam as a condition to (before) obtaining accreditation. Next Steps On This Topic The ICANN organization will complete work on proposed accreditation criteria/processes, in light of the IRT's feedback, to present to the IRT for discussion. Other Action Items IRT members asked a few questions that could not be answered during the meeting, including: (1) What is the current volume of registrar accreditation applications processed by ICANN? (2) How many applications for accreditation did ICANN receive at the launch of the registrar accreditation program? Answers are as follows: (1) ICANN received 9-12 applications/quarter in each of the last three quarters if you do not count the bulk accreditations received (counting each in a bulk accreditation batch as 1 application). (2) In our first announcement on the registrar accreditation program, on 21 April 1999, ICANN announced that 34 companies had applied and met the accreditation criteria <https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-1999-04-21-en>. By the end of 1999 ICANN had announced a total of 98 applicants that met the criteria <https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-1999-12-21-en>. ICANN announced in May 2000 that we were up to 124 companies <https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2000-05-11-en>. Next IRT Meeting The IRT's next meeting is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, 25 April, at 1400 UTC. The calendar reminder will be distributed separately. On this call, we will discuss the registrar de-accreditation process. Caitlin Tubergen, who manages this process for the Registrar Services & Engagement Team, will be with us on the call. A description of the process is available at, https://www.icann.org/resources/files/dartp-2013-07-11-en. As this process was referenced by the PDP WG, we want to provide a quick primer on the process for the IRT, and then we will discuss possible challenges to applying this process in the Privacy/Proxy context. The goal of the call is to solicit the IRT's views on how this process should-or should not-be applied to privacy/proxy providers. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or reply to the list. Best, 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