Thanks, Steve!

I was just preparing to do that.

As background, you’ll remember that we have discussed the PPAA amendment/negotiation process a couple of times within the IRT. The first time we discussed this topic, the general feedback from the IRT was that the amendment process from the RAA is lengthy and perhaps too complicated for the PPAA, as a new agreement that may need to be adjusted based on lessons learned as it goes into effect.

The next time we discussed this, we talked about the negotiation process, which is somewhat shorter than the Board-initiated amendments process. And we had some feedback that perhaps a re-convened IRT could be involved in this process, at least in the short term. So the language we are going to discuss tomorrow is an attempt to work that into this negotiation process.

We are proposing the following edits:

An update to the definition of “working group”: “Working Group” means a standing working group comprised of representatives of the Service Providers and other interested parties appointed by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (the “GNSO”) for purposes of this Agreement ~~and other members of the community appointed from time to time by a majority of the Service Providers who elect to participate in the Working Group selection process~~; provided, that, if the ~~Generic Names Supporting Organization (the~~ “GNSO”) forms a stakeholder group for providers of the Services (the “Provider Stakeholder Group”), then following the date of the formation of the Provider Stakeholder Group, the Provider Stakeholder Group shall appoint the representatives making up the Working Group. The Working Group will serve as a working group to consult on amendments to the Service Provider Agreements (excluding bilateral amendments pursuant to Section 6.9).
An update to Section 7.4 (the “negotiation” section): 7.4.1 If either the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN (“CEO”) or the Chairperson of the Working Group or, if it exists, the Provider Stakeholder Group (“Chair”) desires to discuss any revision(s) to this Agreement, the CEO or Chair, as applicable, shall provide written notice to the other person, which shall set forth in reasonable detail the proposed revisions to this Agreement (a “Negotiation Notice”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the CEO nor the Chair may (i) propose revisions to this Agreement that modify any Consensus Policy then existing, (ii) propose revisions to this Agreement pursuant to this Section 7.4 on or before [six months following Board approval of the Agreement DATE TO BE INSERTED], or (iii) propose revisions or submit a Negotiation Notice more than once during any twelve month period beginning on [the 24 month anniversary of Board approval of the Agreement, DATE TO BE INSERTED].

The practical effect of these edits is that (a) the GNSO could re-convene the IRT to discuss PPAA amendments and the amendment negotiation process could be initiated as soon as six months after the contract goes into effect. In addition, the usual “once per year” limit on the negotiation of amendments would not apply until after the agreement has been in effect for two years.

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@icann.org

www.icann.org

From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 1:48 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items, request for additional IRT input after 8 August IRT call

Hello Amy,

Apologies if I missed something previously circulated on this…..

Regarding item 3 in the Discussion Items chart: “Updated language based on IRT discussion to be discussed at 15 August IRT meeting.”

Has this updated language being teed up for discussion tomorrow been circulated yet?

Steve Metalitz

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation

T: 202.355.7902 | met@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-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:39 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items, request for additional IRT input after 8 August IRT call

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording, which is available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/08+August+2017

Attached, you will find an updated “issues list” that includes a detailed summary of all the PPAA-related topics discussed to date, including those raised on the call today. A very short summary of the input received today and the significant outstanding questions is also available below. Please review the topics discussed today and submit any additional feedback you have no later than next Monday, 14 August. Your feedback is especially needed on the LEA Framework and Data Retention topics.

Proposed upcoming IRT discussion schedule:

15 August: PPAA definitions, PPAA amendment/negotiation process (updated per IRT feedback), RAA synchronization, request suggestions for future discussion topics

22 August: LEA framework, data retention, IP Framework, business dealings

29 August: Data escrow, labeling (new draft specification modeled on RAA requirements to be provided, per IRT feedback)

Summary of Discussion on Today’s Call

PPAA Issues 18-19: LEA Framework:
- Updates to definitions to conform with rest of PPAA: no further edits suggested by IRT
- Proposed edit to Section 3.2.1 from PSWG, editing the section as follows:
  - Summary of proposed edit: This would reduce the period required for a provider to initiate a review of a law enforcement request from 2 business days to 24 hours. However, this would also eliminate any requirement for the provider to respond to the LEA requester within 24 hours.
  - PSWG rationale: This edit was made to align more closely with RAA requirement (See Section 3.18.2 RAA—“Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report.”
  - Summary of IRT feedback thus far: Some IRT members said 24 hours is too short a period; possibly 1 business day would be preferable; Other IRT members supported edit and alignment with RAA. See issues list for detailed feedback.

PPAA Issues 4, 23: Data Retention Requirements
- Summary of IRT Feedback: Proposed required data elements appear generally OK; retention period appears to create issues under global data protection laws notwithstanding proposed reduction from RAA’s 2-year requirement to 1-year requirement proposed for PPAA
- Proposed solution raised by IRT member: Edit to require retention based on maximum period allowed under applicable law.
PPAA Issue 12: Accreditation Agreement Term
- Summary of IRT Feedback: IRT members who commented supported the inclusion of a 5-year term for the contract, as is done for the RAA.
Customer Data Accuracy Specification:
- Summary of IRT Feedback: Questions raised regarding how third-party providers would comply with these requirements.
- IRT is requested to comment further on this specification, specifically, if a third-party provider cannot comply with these requirements, how should this be handled in the contract?