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

Notes, Action Items From Today's PP IRT Call
by Amy Bivins Feb. 16, 2018

Feb. 16, 2018

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to review the recording, which is posted on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/13+February+2018. Today, we discussed three topics: (1) the updated de-accreditation procedure; (2) the updated Policy document; and (3) the ongoing discussion on the list re: the LEA framework specification, specifically the processes of discussing the disagreement about the timing of a provider's "actioning" of a "high priority" request. Please review the attached materials, summary below and/or the recording and provide any further input on these topics by the end of this week. IRT feedback is specifically requested on the five recommendations received from IRT members related to the LEA Framework Specification. This will be discussed next week. IRT Input on De-Accreditation Process * Recommendation 1: In Section 2.2.4, edit to note that this right of transfer is subject to the ICANN transfer policy. * Proposed response: This edit will be made unless we receive input to the contrary that warrants further discussion. * Recommendation 2: In Section 2.5, delete references to specific methods of contact. * Proposed response: This edit will be made unless we receive input to the contrary that warrants further discussion. * Recommendation 3: In Section 3, should there be more specifics about what this notice should require? Section 2.4 could be referenced, for example. * Proposed response: Absent further input on Section 2.4, a reference to Section 2.4 will be added. IRT Input on Draft Policy Document * Recommendation 1: Eliminate use of "Person" in definitions. * Proposed response 1: This topic has been raised before, but did not appear to have widespread support by members of the IRT. The word "Person" was used to ensure consistency across definitions and for clarity and conciseness. As a result, it seems preferable to retain the use of the word "Person," absent feedback that indicates it is the consensus view of the IRT to eliminate the use of the word "Person." * Proposed response 2: One IRT member suggested that the word "Person" could be added to the definitions section of this document for added clarity. This edit will be made unless we receive input to the contrary that warrants further discussion. * Recommendation 2: Implementation of RDDS requirements, as a matter of policy, should be done through high-level WHOIS policy rather than piecemeal in this Policy document, as this could be lost over time as/when/if other WHOIS requirements are updated. * Proposed response: Additional IRT feedback is requested on this topic, and staff will also consult about this topic. There are many different ICANN policies that concern WHOIS/RDDS (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en) The CL&D Policy does specifically concern labeling, which is what the requirement here is about, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2017-02-01-en. LEA Framework Discussions The IRT has been discussing the draft LEA Disclosure Framework Specification periodically for approximately nine months. Most elements of this draft framework appear to be settled, but disagreement remains on one specific point: how and when a provider must "action" a "high priority" request. PSWG members of the IRT have proposed that high priority requests be actioned within 24 hours. IRT members, particularly registrars, contend that this time period is unreasonable. The most recent feedback received on this on the list for proposed edits to the current draft (which currently requires that a high priority request be actioned within 24 hours) is as follows: * Recommendation 1: Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, Provider shall use its best efforts towards actioning the request within 24 hours on business days or as close as possible to this, or "actioning the request within 24 hours for up to 90% (or some other level determined acceptable by Providers) of incidences." * Recommendation 2: Add "without limitations" back to section 4.2.2. What's listed under 4.2.2 should be non-limiting examples for when disclosure can be reasonably refused. * Recommendation 3: Define the word "Action" as follows (or similar): "As used in this subsection, "action" means (i) to disclose to the LEA requestor, or (ii) to refuse to disclose to the LEA requestor, citing one or more of the reasons listed in 4.2.2"?; or to add, after "action," "in accordance with subsection 4.2," which includes both the options listed (as well as the option of extending the deadline, "in exceptional circumstances," see 4.2.4). * Recommendation 4: Where a disclosure request is categorized as High Priority, LEA will make every effort to contact the Provider directly to discuss the matter, and should it be determined that Provider has useful information, Provider shall use its best efforts to action the request within 24 hours, noting that a court order/subpoena may still be required prior to release of any information. Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law. * Recommendation 5: Edit to state that "Provider shall use reasonable efforts to respond to the request as soon as possible" as opposed to Provider shall use its best efforts to action the request within 24 hours. IRT Action Item: IRT feedback is specifically requested on these five recommendations. This will be discussed once more, on Tuesday, with the goal of determining whether agreement can be reached or not on any further changes to the current draft. If agreement cannot be reached on Tuesday, the various positions will be specifically noted in the call for public comments. 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 3

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Request for IRT Feedback: LEA Framework Specification, Receipt Process's Application to High Priority Requests
by Sara Bockey Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

A few items. Again, I’m concerned that we are creating policy, not implementing it. Granted, the framework outlined in the Final Report is not as robust as what is detailed for IPC, but then again LEA did not participate in the PDP process. The IRT is not the place to be creating policy for LEAs. That said, the problem with a strict 24-hour period is that it doesn’t acknowledge certain situations/matters may require additional time, falling outside a 24-hour period despite a Provider’s best efforts. Language such as “Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, this must be actioned within 24 hours” are overly strict and sets the Provider up for failure/being out of compliance due to circumstances beyond its control. Finally, I fear the LEA framework as currently written creates unrealistic expectations/SLAs. There seems to be a presumption of disclosure – if LEAs check all the right boxes, the information will be disclosed. However, this decision should reside with the provider, who does not have to bypass due process just to please LEAs. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <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: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Request for IRT Feedback: LEA Framework Specification, Receipt Process's Application to High Priority Requests Dear Colleagues, As mentioned on the list a couple of weeks ago, the current draft PPAA is still a bit ambiguous regarding how the review process outlined in Section 3.2.1 applies to high priority requests. We need ensure that the draft is clear about this requirement when we go out for public comment (and if there is opposition to the proposed requirement by any members of the IRT, this will be flagged in the call for comments). Upon reviewing the IRT’s input to date, I am proposing an edit that I believe reflects the IRT discussion on this point. Please review and provide your comments on this proposed language no later than this Friday, 9 February. To summarize, the current draft contains a two-step process for Providers upon receipt of a request from LEA. (1) Within two business days, the Provider must review the request and confirm to the LEA requester that it has been received and contains the relevant information required to meet the minimum standard for acceptance (See 3.2.1 of Specification 4). (2) The Provider must then action the request in accordance with the priority level (within 24 hours for “high priority” requests (4.1.2); or within the timeline requested by LEA, if possible, for other requests (See 4.1.3). The current language may be a bit ambiguous as to whether the two business day “review period” applies before the 24-hour period for responding to high priority requests (as explained in more detail in the attached message). The view of registrar IRT members appears to be that requiring action within 24 hours of receipt of an LEA request, even if it is a high priority request, is unacceptable. PSWG members of the IRT disagree. Other IRT members appear to have mixed views on this (some referenced the RAA requirement that “Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these [dedicated LEA] 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.” Registrar members of the IRT said that the RAA-required review is less intensive than the PPAA review due to the specific requirements in the PPAA draft). Based on the views expressed within the IRT, it appears that one potential solution to this ambiguity would be to update Section 4.1.2 to state that (proposed edit in red), “Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, this must be actioned within 24 hours of completion of the receipt process outlined in Section 3.2.” The LEA Requestor will detail the threat type and justification for a request with a Priority Level of High Priority.” The practical impact of this proposed change would be that the provider must action a high priority request within 24 hours of determining that the request meets the minimum standard for acceptance. If the provider completes the receipt process sooner than 2 business days after receipt of the request, this would start the 24-hour clock for actioning the request. Thus, this could shorten the response window a bit, partially addressing the PSWG concerns of a “two business days plus 24 hours” requirement, while also addressing registrar concerns by not starting the clock until the provider has time to review the request, if the full time of the receipt process is required to conduct that review. Please provide your feedback on this proposed change no later than this Friday, 9 Feb. And if you have further comments on this, please share those 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>

9 31

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT call
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Hi Chris, Thank you for this, I will note your apology for tomorrow's meeting. Kind regards, Michelle From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chris Pelling <chris(a)netearth.net<mailto:chris@netearth.net>> 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: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:32 PM 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] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT call Hi Amy, Sorry I wont be able to make this tomorrow. Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "Amy Bivins" <amy.bivins(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Sent: Monday, 12 February, 2018 17:23:47 Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT call Hello, All, In advance of tomorrow's IRT call, I'm attaching the updated PP Policy document (in both clean and redline versions) and the de-accreditation process document in redline. Tomorrow we're planning to walk through the updates to these documents since we've last discussed them, and then we'll leave them open for your feedback. Following up on the discussion on the list this past week, we've seen significant discussion of the LEA disclosure framework. I don't believe that Peter is available tomorrow to join us, so we should wait until he is available (hopefully next week) to discuss. If, despite the progression of this discussion, we are unable to reach agreement on the topic, we will flag the various suggestions and views raised by IRT members for public comment. 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

2 1

Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT call
by Amy Bivins Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Hello, All, In advance of tomorrow's IRT call, I'm attaching the updated PP Policy document (in both clean and redline versions) and the de-accreditation process document in redline. Tomorrow we're planning to walk through the updates to these documents since we've last discussed them, and then we'll leave them open for your feedback. Following up on the discussion on the list this past week, we've seen significant discussion of the LEA disclosure framework. I don't believe that Peter is available tomorrow to join us, so we should wait until he is available (hopefully next week) to discuss. If, despite the progression of this discussion, we are unable to reach agreement on the topic, we will flag the various suggestions and views raised by IRT members for public comment. 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

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT call
by Darcy Southwell Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

My apologies, but I won’t be able to make tomorrow’s meeting. I will follow up by listening to the recording. Darcy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <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> Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:23 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for tomorrow's PP IRT call Hello, All, In advance of tomorrow’s IRT call, I’m attaching the updated PP Policy document (in both clean and redline versions) and the de-accreditation process document in redline. Tomorrow we’re planning to walk through the updates to these documents since we’ve last discussed them, and then we’ll leave them open for your feedback. Following up on the discussion on the list this past week, we’ve seen significant discussion of the LEA disclosure framework. I don’t believe that Peter is available tomorrow to join us, so we should wait until he is available (hopefully next week) to discuss. If, despite the progression of this discussion, we are unable to reach agreement on the topic, we will flag the various suggestions and views raised by IRT members for public comment. 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 _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

2 1

Doc's for 2/13 PPSAI IRT call?
by Metalitz, Steven Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Hello Amy, In the run up to tomorrow's call I am checking on the status of the 2 documents you referenced in the message below as likely to be ready for review by the IRT by then: (1) One additional specification to review, related to the proposed format for monthly reporting (2) Updates to the draft Policy document, de-accreditation process document, and Applicant Guide based on the IRT's input Thanks in advance for the latest on this. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:14 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items, next steps following today's IRT call Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today's privacy/proxy IRT call. If you couldn't attend, I encourage you to listen to the (very short) recording, available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/30+January+2018<https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/30+January+2018> Today, we reviewed proposed edits to Specification 5, including the addition of the following text from the Final Report to the specification's introduction (see p. 85 of the Final Report), "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." Barring any further IRT discussion on this change, or the other following typographical changes throughout the specification, we will make these edits to the next PPAA draft: * Updating references to "WHOIS" to "RDDS" throughout the specification; * Updating the word "Policy" to "Specification" throughout the specification; * Changing the word "trademark" to "copyright" in Section 32.2.7.4<http://32.2.7.4>. We also reviewed the previously agreed-upon plan to publish the draft data retention specification as-is, with the understanding that this could be impacted at a later date by the parallel GDPR work that is currently underway. Please send any further input you have on these items to the list this week. Next Steps We have one additional specification to review, related to the proposed format for monthly reporting (we expect this will mostly be of interest to the registrar members of the IRT). If this is ready next week we will review but, if not, we may cancel next week's meeting. I'll let you know by the end of this week. Meanwhile, ICANN Org is finalizing updates to the draft Policy document, de-accreditation process document, and Applicant Guide based on the IRT's input. I expect to be able to share these with you next week, for discussion the following week (the week of 13 February). I hope to be able to share the next PPAA draft with you the week of 13 Feb, for final IRT review over the following couple of weeks. Once these materials have been reviewed by the IRT, we will be ready for public comment. Our hope is to publish these for comment by the end of February, or at least prior to ICANN61. We have requested an IRT meeting slot for ICANN61, but do not have a date/time confirmed yet. Provided we are out for comment at that point, we plan to discuss the remaining Transfer Policy issue during that meeting. 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

Request for IRT Feedback: LEA Framework Specification, Receipt Process's Application to High Priority Requests
by Amy Bivins Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Colleagues, As mentioned on the list a couple of weeks ago, the current draft PPAA is still a bit ambiguous regarding how the review process outlined in Section 3.2.1 applies to high priority requests. We need ensure that the draft is clear about this requirement when we go out for public comment (and if there is opposition to the proposed requirement by any members of the IRT, this will be flagged in the call for comments). Upon reviewing the IRT's input to date, I am proposing an edit that I believe reflects the IRT discussion on this point. Please review and provide your comments on this proposed language no later than this Friday, 9 February. To summarize, the current draft contains a two-step process for Providers upon receipt of a request from LEA. (1) Within two business days, the Provider must review the request and confirm to the LEA requester that it has been received and contains the relevant information required to meet the minimum standard for acceptance (See 3.2.1 of Specification 4). (2) The Provider must then action the request in accordance with the priority level (within 24 hours for "high priority" requests (4.1.2); or within the timeline requested by LEA, if possible, for other requests (See 4.1.3). The current language may be a bit ambiguous as to whether the two business day "review period" applies before the 24-hour period for responding to high priority requests (as explained in more detail in the attached message). The view of registrar IRT members appears to be that requiring action within 24 hours of receipt of an LEA request, even if it is a high priority request, is unacceptable. PSWG members of the IRT disagree. Other IRT members appear to have mixed views on this (some referenced the RAA requirement that "Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these [dedicated LEA] 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." Registrar members of the IRT said that the RAA-required review is less intensive than the PPAA review due to the specific requirements in the PPAA draft). Based on the views expressed within the IRT, it appears that one potential solution to this ambiguity would be to update Section 4.1.2 to state that (proposed edit in red), "Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, this must be actioned within 24 hours of completion of the receipt process outlined in Section 3.2." The LEA Requestor will detail the threat type and justification for a request with a Priority Level of High Priority." The practical impact of this proposed change would be that the provider must action a high priority request within 24 hours of determining that the request meets the minimum standard for acceptance. If the provider completes the receipt process sooner than 2 business days after receipt of the request, this would start the 24-hour clock for actioning the request. Thus, this could shorten the response window a bit, partially addressing the PSWG concerns of a "two business days plus 24 hours" requirement, while also addressing registrar concerns by not starting the clock until the provider has time to review the request, if the full time of the receipt process is required to conduct that review. Please provide your feedback on this proposed change no later than this Friday, 9 Feb. And if you have further comments on this, please share those 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>

1 0

Canceled--PP IRT meeting scheduled for 6 Feb
by Amy Bivins Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

Dear Colleagues, The Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting scheduled for 6 February has been canceled. We will reconvene the following week, 13 February. Please watch your inboxes, as updated materials should be distributed for your review and discussion on 13 February by the end of next week. Best (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

Action items, next steps following today's IRT call
by Amy Bivins Jan. 30, 2018

Jan. 30, 2018

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today's privacy/proxy IRT call. If you couldn't attend, I encourage you to listen to the (very short) recording, available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/30+January+2018 Today, we reviewed proposed edits to Specification 5, including the addition of the following text from the Final Report to the specification's introduction (see p. 85 of the Final Report), "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." Barring any further IRT discussion on this change, or the other following typographical changes throughout the specification, we will make these edits to the next PPAA draft: * Updating references to "WHOIS" to "RDDS" throughout the specification; * Updating the word "Policy" to "Specification" throughout the specification; * Changing the word "trademark" to "copyright" in Section 32.2.7.4. We also reviewed the previously agreed-upon plan to publish the draft data retention specification as-is, with the understanding that this could be impacted at a later date by the parallel GDPR work that is currently underway. Please send any further input you have on these items to the list this week. Next Steps We have one additional specification to review, related to the proposed format for monthly reporting (we expect this will mostly be of interest to the registrar members of the IRT). If this is ready next week we will review but, if not, we may cancel next week's meeting. I'll let you know by the end of this week. Meanwhile, ICANN Org is finalizing updates to the draft Policy document, de-accreditation process document, and Applicant Guide based on the IRT's input. I expect to be able to share these with you next week, for discussion the following week (the week of 13 February). I hope to be able to share the next PPAA draft with you the week of 13 Feb, for final IRT review over the following couple of weeks. Once these materials have been reviewed by the IRT, we will be ready for public comment. Our hope is to publish these for comment by the end of February, or at least prior to ICANN61. We have requested an IRT meeting slot for ICANN61, but do not have a date/time confirmed yet. Provided we are out for comment at that point, we plan to discuss the remaining Transfer Policy issue during that meeting. 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

Copy edits to Spec. 5
by Metalitz, Steven Jan. 29, 2018

Jan. 29, 2018

PPSAI IRT colleagues, In advance of our discussion tomorrow on Specification 5, the Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification, I offer a handful of copy edits/typo corrections in the attached document. Mainly this involves substituting the word "Specification" for "Policy" and "RDDS" for "Whois." In case you have trouble distinguishing these copy edits from the ICANN staff's redlines, note that the only sections I have touched are the following: 1.3, 1.4, 2.2.2, 2.2.7.4, 2.3.2, 3.1.2.1. In addition, I suggest we find the appropriate place in this Specification for implementation of the following paragraph from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework adopted by the PDP Working Group: "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." Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:53 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Final IRT Feedback Due EOD Sunday 28 Jan: draft LEA framework Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Program IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording. Today, we continued discussing the LEA disclosure framework specification in the draft PPAA (pp. 50-54 of the draft contract, attached). The discussion today confirmed that there is continued uncertainty regarding two items in the draft framework. Please submit any final feedback that you have on these topics to the list this week. After this final feedback period, if this issue/these issues are unresolved, they will be specifically identified as unresolved in the call for public comments. Section 3.1: As drafted, this section requires Providers to publish on their websites the designated LEA contact (e.g. email address, telephone number, form or other means for LEA to obtain the designated LEA contact information). Summary of Issue: Many members of the IRT support the deletion of the requirement that this contact (or a means to obtain this contact) appear on the Provider's website. The RAA does not require registrars to publish the registrar LEA contact on the registrar website (See RAA 3.18.2). There appear to be at least a few possible paths forward: 1. Keep language as-is. 2. Delete the second sentence of 3.1, which requires that this information be posted on the Provider website. 3. Replace the second sentence of 3.1 with language such as that suggested by Steve Metalitz, "Provider shall provide to LEA an appropriate means for LEA to obtain the designated LEA contact information." 4. Language from Section 3.18.2 of the RAA could be adapted for this agreement by changing "Registrar" to "Provider" or by making additional edits: 3.18.2 Registrar shall establish and maintain a dedicated abuse point of contact, including a dedicated email address and telephone number that is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive reports of Illegal Activity by law enforcement, consumer protection, quasi-governmental or other similar authorities designated from time to time by the national or territorial government of the jurisdiction in which the Registrar is established or maintains a physical office. 5. We could keep the language as-is for now, note any remaining disagreement about whether the contact (or a way to obtain it) should be posted on the Provider's website during the public comment period, and request community feedback on potential paths forward. 6. Some other path (please explain). Timeline for Providers to Action "High Priority" Requests From LEA Summary of Issue: The current PPAA draft contains a two-step process for Providers upon receipt of a request from LEA. (1) Within two business days, the Provider must review the request and confirm to the LEA requester that it has been received and contains the relevant information required to meet the minimum standard for acceptance (See 3.2.1). (2) The Provider must then action the request in accordance with the priority level (within 24 hours for "high priority" requests (4.1.2); or within the timeline requested by LEA, if possible, for other requests (See 4.1.3). Note 1: The RAA requires (See Section 3.18.2) that "Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these [dedicated LEA] 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." Note 2: There is some uncertainty, as this is currently drafted, as to whether the 2 business day review period applies before the 24 hour response time for "high priority" requests. Section 4.1.1 states that "Upon completion of the Receipt Process Specified in Section 3 of this Specification, Provider will action, in accordance with Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this Specification, the disclosure request in accordance with the Priority Level." Upon the resolution of the issue below, we will review the specification as a whole to ensure it reflects the intended result. IRT questions: 1. Should Providers be required to action all "high priority" requests within 24 hours of receipt, as recommended by PSWG (and not apply the 2 business day "receipt period" first)? 2. If no, do you see a compromise short of applying the current 2 business day receipt period prior to the 24-hour period for actioning a "high priority" request? Thanks so much for your continued input on these topics. Next week, we will pick up our discussion with the IP Disclosure Framework Specification. 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