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

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Agenda for Tuesday's PP IRT meeting
by Sara Bockey June 1, 2018

June 1, 2018

I will not be able to attend Tuesday’s call. Please note my apologies. Thanks, Sara 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: Friday, June 1, 2018 at 12:44 PM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Agenda for Tuesday's PP IRT meeting Dear Colleagues, We will have our regularly-scheduled Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting on Tuesday, but we aren’t expecting it to be a long one. I will provide an update on the project status and timeline and will also provide an opportunity for any additional feedback you may have on the fees document that was recently distributed. As mentioned last week, ICANN is reviewing all of the proposed accreditation program materials, including against the Temporary Specification, and will bring any items that arise back to the IRT for discussion. If you have any practical examples you would like to share with the group of how PP services are operating now, in light of the approval of the Temporary Specification, please feel free to share them with the list (before our meeting or anytime) or come prepared to share on Tuesday. 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>

2 1

PP IRT canceled next week, status update
by Amy Bivins May 24, 2018

May 24, 2018

Dear Colleagues, The PP IRT meeting scheduled for 29 May is canceled. We expect to have an update/answer to the communications to ICANN org, requesting a pause of this group's work, to be published next week. In the interim, I can report that ICANN is reviewing all of the proposed accreditation program materials, including against the Temporary Specification, and will bring any issues that arise back to the IRT for discussion. Following any additional feedback from you on the proposed next steps on the data escrow specification (requested deadline of tomorrow, 25 May), we will finalize the data escrow-related materials for distribution and feedback. 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

PP IRT question, no meeting Tues, fees info to be distributed shortly
by Amy Bivins May 21, 2018

May 21, 2018

Dear Colleagues, This week's PP IRT meeting will be canceled, as the issues on our to-do list this week can be addressed without a call. We have one question for you, below. Please consider this issue and provide your comments on this no later than 28 May. I hope to be able to update you later this week on the status of the RrSG request (received by ICANN 4 May) to pause this IRT's work (and the COA's letter in opposition). I also expect to be able to send the fees-related documentation to you within the next couple of days. Background The IRT has recommended that, with respect to the data escrow specification, Privacy and Proxy service providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar should be able to meet their data escrow deposit obligations through the registrar (so the registrar would deposit the PP registration data and underlying customer data, similar to the process currently followed under the interim RAA specification). In order to achieve this result, ICANN would need to make slight updates to the Registrar Data Escrow specification, to add two required data elements for the deposit (the privacy/proxy service provider ID and the domain ID). Question: Is this an acceptable result (updating registrar data escrow specification for PP-affiliated registrars that wish to have combined data escrow deposits), or should ICANN revert to having a completely separate data escrow specification that all PPs must deposit under, regardless of whether the PP is affiliated with a registrar or not? Please note that, regardless of the answer to this question, there will be a separate PP data escrow specification for (a) third-party providers and (b) providers that work with more than 1 registrar. Based on discussions thus far, we believe the intent was the former (updating the registrar specification) but we wanted to confirm before finalizing that proposed update to the registrar specification and distributing it to the designated data escrow agents to alert them to the proposed update. 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>

4 3

New Temp Spec reference
by Volker Greimann May 18, 2018

May 18, 2018

As the new Temporary Spec now contains a direct obligation with regard to privacy services: /in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email./ Correctly interpreted, this means that ICANN must offer a complete and up-to-date machine readable list of privacy services along with a reference of how to automatically recognize them as part of the accreditation program because otherwise there will be no way for registries and registrars of automatically setting their records to "display". Just another point in case why the TempSpec is deeply flawed. // -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
by Sara Bockey May 18, 2018

May 18, 2018

Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? 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: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5 (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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>

8 16

Response from COA to RrSG's request for PP IRT/AFAV pause received, posted to ICANN.org
by Amy Bivins May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

Dear Colleagues, ICANN org received a letter yesterday from the Coalition for Online Accountability that responded to the RrSG's 4 May request that ICANN org pause the work of the PP IRT and the AFAV project. The letter is posted on ICANN org's correspondence page at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marks-metalitz-to-atal… These communications are being evaluated. I'll provide an update re: status as soon as it is available. 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

No PP IRT meeting tomorrow
by Amy Bivins May 7, 2018

May 7, 2018

Dear Colleagues, We will not have a PP IRT meeting tomorrow because there are no new materials available to discuss. As noted in Xavier's message to the group on Friday, ICANN is working to finalize the additional fees-related materials and will provide an update to the group this week. The regularly-scheduled IRT meeting will also be canceled for next week, as many IRT members and staff will be attending the GDD Summit meeting. However, please watch your inboxes-I will send you anything we have that is ready for your feedback. In case you didn't see it, ICANN received a letter from the RrSG on Friday, recommending that this IRT's work be paused, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-atallah-04ma…. This recommendation is being evaluated, and I'll provide you an update as soon as I can. 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

Privacy and proxy services accreditation IRT - Fee evaluation - Follow up and update
by Xavier J. Calvez May 5, 2018

May 5, 2018

Dear IRT members, I am following up on the call held last week on the fee determination and the follow up actions we discussed. We have made good progress since last week’s call and are working towards completion. I am providing a status update on and some comments below. 1. Fee determination methodology: document the approach described verbally during the call last week – 80% complete. Need final review and editing. 2. PP accreditation application fee: provide breakdown of the cost estimate – 80% complete. Need to match the cost breakdown items to the list of activities provided, and perform final review. 3. PP annual accreditation fee: provide breakdown of the cost estimate – We had not included this topic in the original responses and we need to develop a response that provides an overall view of costing. The annual accreditation fee encompasses a much broader scope of activities than the more specific application process. As a reminder, the cost estimate is only one of the factors that contribute to the determination of a fee, and one that is used to corroborate the reasonableness of the fee levels considered, rather than a determining factor. We do understand that addressing this topic is the last open item before moving to the next step, and we are working diligently on completing the work on this matter, among several other priorities. We will provide an update on the above in course of next week. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN – SVP & CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: 310-301-5838 Mobile: 805-312-0052 Fax: 310-957-2348

1 0

PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)
by Amy Bivins May 1, 2018

May 1, 2018

Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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>

4 7

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
by Chris Pelling April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

I also agree with Sara's, Eric and Theo points. Sent by Chris on the move. -------- Original message --------From: theo geurts <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl> Date: 30/04/2018 20:28 (GMT+00:00) To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org, Eric Rokobauer <eric.rokobauer(a)endurance.com> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Agreed with Eric and Sara, 4.2.6, we could move that one around some. 4.2.2.5, I rather keep it in, it does not hurt and I 100% agree, democracy is not a given. Theo On 30-4-2018 21:05, Eric Rokobauer wrote: Apologies for the late reply in providing some feedback. Comments following Sara's comments from 19 April: Inclusion of "without limitations" in section 4.2.2 - I agree with Sara here. Ideally again it is to cover the Provider from potential instances that we here in this IRT may not be recognizing here. 4.2.2.5 being potentially redundant - I believe this should be removed if IRT does find to be redundant. While I do appreciate Sara's comments, if we do all agree there is duplication here with the statement, best we remove to clear any potential confusion that could come later (thinking when we may not necessarily remember why we had this added in the first place). 4.2.6 - I agree that this is not redundant and should still be kept, but open to having it included elsewhere within section 4.2 if majority feels it would be better represented. As for the timeframe, agree that one business day should be our default. Thanks Eric Eric Rokobauer Sr. Registrar Compliance Manager | Endurance International Group 10 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Burlington MA 01803 T - 781.852.3445 E - eric.rokobauer(a)endurance.com On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. Peter Roman Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323 peter.roman(a)usdoj.gov From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)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: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5 (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

1 0