Hi Caitlin, et al, Two comments regarding the RDE spec. 3.1.5 This reads a bit funny. It's good that we MAY add additional CSV's, does this exclude a separate RDE deposit? What is the goal here? 3.16 Why not link to the RDE spec itself? At some point, I guess there will be changes, having a spec in one place makes it easier and less chance there is confusion. Just a practical point I guess. The agreement itself. Data Retention Spec. I am fine with adding such a specification, as long it does not violate applicable law, and this should be reflected in the language. I think we and the community should make sure we stop pushing ICANN ORG into a data controller situation. Waivers and all that have proven to be highly insufficient, a legal burden and in some cases contracted parties still have not required one. Thanks, Theo Geurts Caitlin Tubergen schreef op 2017-10-15 08:23 PM:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your participation on last week’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to review the recording and materials on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/10+October+2017.
During the call, we discussed:
* The draft de-accredited Provider Transition Procedure, specifically in reference to how unresolved abuse complaints should be handled. In the updated (and attached) version, please refer to section 2.7, where a requirement for the terminating provider to transfer unresolved abuse complaints to the gaining provider upon termination has been added. This was a suggestion proposed by a member of the IRT. (Note: there is not a requirement for the gaining provider to process the abuse complaints on a shortened timeline.) Please let us know if you have any further feedback on the De-Accredited Provider Transition Procedure.
* The draft applicant guidebook/application: in the draft we discussed (version 4), the background check questions were changed to mirror the questions in the registrar accreditation application. NOTE TO IRT: PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU BELIEVE THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE WG’S RECOMMENDATIONS. In the updated draft, we reverted to the language in the IP Framework (per feedback from some members of the IRT), and we added a question, per IRT feedback, asking applicants to inform ICANN if its principals/officers have previously been employed by an entity whose ICANN accreditation was involuntarily terminated by ICANN. Please see section 3.6 and section 6.10.
* A high-level overview of the changes to the updated PPAA draft: we will be discussing the updates in greater details in upcoming calls.
For our call on Tuesday, October 17, we will be presenting the DATA ESCROW SPECIFICATION (attached). You will have additional time to review and provide feedback on the Data Escrow Specification following the call. Following a summary of the Data Escrow Specification, we will be working through the updated PPAA. If there is anything in particular you would like to flag before the call, please respond via the list.
Thank you!
Best,
Caitlin
--
CAITLIN TUBERGEN
Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Office: +1 310 578 8666
Mobile: +1 310 699 5326
Email: caitlin.tubergen@icann.org _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl