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.
- 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.
- Updates to definitions to conform with rest of PPAA: no further edits suggested by IRT
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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?
- Summary of IRT Feedback:
Questions raised regarding how third-party providers would comply with these requirements.
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