Hi Steve and all,
1. For the document for Part 1—the third-party requests document—the rows that do not include a specific question for the IRT include relevant background information, providing context for questions that come later. You’ll see in the slides tomorrow that we are planning to talk about the background—the known requirements from the Final Report for each type of request, in most cases, which lead to the questions we are asking. I hope this format is useful.
2. Thank you for this feedback on the overall approach. We can discuss this more tomorrow. The “who can submit a request” question is focused on request types designed for certain entities (IP holders/representatives or LEA) and was not intended as a proposal to limit eligibility for other types of requests/abuse reports.
3. For Part 2 of the agenda, we do not have any information to share with you as of today. Please think about questions you may want to ask the PSWG—we expect this will be more of a discussion than a presentation because there is no document to review yet.
Best,
Amy
From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:58 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Cc: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Agenda, questions for Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting on 11 March
Thanks for this material, Amy. A couple of questions:
1. On the document for the Part I agenda, should we be focusing only on the rows that include a “specific question for IRT” in Column D? I note that in several cases that block is empty. Can we put those rows aside?
2. In row 2 (third party-requests), I generally support the proposed resolution, though perhaps the development of these minimum mandatory criteria could be assigned to a subgroup. I also question the need to resolve “(a) who can submit a request.” The focus should be on the “minimum mandatory criteria,” which certainly could include a requirement that the requester identify him/her/itself, but I have a harder time understanding the need to define some group of individuals or entities as ineligible to submit a request.
3. For Part 2 of the agenda, has the PSWG provided any advance questions or any document to help structure the discussion?
Thanks again and I plan to participate remotely tomorrow.
Steve Metalitz
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@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, March 07, 2017 10:08 AM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Cc: Fabien Betremieux
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Agenda, questions for Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting on 11 March
Hello, All,
I hope you are well, and I look forward to seeing those of you who are attending our face-to-face meeting in Copenhagen on Saturday. As a reminder, our meeting will be in Hall A3 and will start at 13:45 local time. We have the room reserved until 18:00.
Remote participation will be available here: https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnx/icann-gdd-privacy-and-proxy-service-provider-accreditation-program-implementation-review-team-irt
Our agenda is as follows (we will follow this as closely as we can):
Part 1: 13:45-15:00: Timeline Check, Updated Policy Document Overview, Third-Party Requests/Abuse Reports
· See attachment: IRT questions related to criteria for third-party requests and abuse reports
15:00-15:15: Break
Part 2: 15:15-16:45: Public Safety Working Group Discussion, Questions related to Accreditation Agreement
16:45-17:00: Break
Part 3: 17:00-18:00: Registrar-related questions
· During this final time slot, we will discuss registrar-related questions that have arisen thus far in this IRT:
(1) How do you envision the registration lifecycle operating when a Provider is not Affiliated with a Registrar (topic is being raised now due to its impact on other requirements, including labeling)?
(2) What should a registrar be required to do when it becomes aware of a registration involving an unaccredited Provider? Alternatives previously raised for discussion included:
o Registrar could treat situation as a WHOIS accuracy issue and verify/re-verify email address (this may not reach root issue because email may be operational);
o Registrar could be required to notify unaccredited Provider of requirement that Providers maintain ICANN accreditation, and provide Provider/Customer a period of time to remedy situation before suspending registration;
o In all cases, should allow significant period for onboarding Providers before enforcing this requirement.
If you have questions or wish to comment prior to the meeting, please feel free to do so on the list. Safe travels!
Best,
Amy
Amy E. Bivins
Registrar Policy Services 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