Some further comments:

 

Section 1.16: James’ comment touches upon this but I think the definition is missing an explicit reference to jurisdiction over the Provider.  Perhaps it should read “in which Provider is organized or established or maintains a physical office or which has jurisdiction over Provider”

Section 2.3.2.  I don’t understand why this is necessary.  I think this should be deleted.

Section 3.2.3.  This sentence is problematic: “In the event Provider believes that the provision of any such data, information or records to ICANN would violate applicable law or any legal proceedings...
“  How does one violate a legal proceeding?  I think this should be deleted.

Section 3.3.  Re: “The provider does not disclaim”  Do we mean “claim”

Section 3.5.3.1.  I do not think requesting the termination or suspending a registered name is within the scope of Privacy Provider’s responsibility.

Section 3.8.4.  Section does not provide for situations in which we cannot disclose requests to the customer (i.e., if a Grand Jury asks for customer information we cannot disclose to the target we were asked).  Section should begin with “Whenever possible in compliance with applicable law, Provider…”  Same concern with 3.16.2.2 and 4.3.

Section 3.14.  Agree with Sara the language regarding automation must be removed.  This is simply not feasible.

Section 3.17.1.  Add “and in compliance with law” to the end of this section.

Section 5.5.9: What is the justification for this?  This seems to blur the lines of contractual responsibility and should be deleted.

 

Thanks,

Greg

 

 

From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 6:09 AM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from today's IRT call

 

Hello, All,

 

This is a reminder to please submit any additional feedback you have on the topics outlined below to the list this week.

 

For Tuesday’s meeting, we will review the IRT’s comments on the contract specifications (with the exception of the data escrow specification—we expect to have an updated version of that ready for the IRT’s review in the next week or so). Based on the comments list, it appears that we should be able to finish reviewing the comments on the specs on Tuesday’s call.

 

Have a great weekend, and I look forward to speaking with you on Tuesday.

 

Best,

Amy

 

From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:09 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from today's IRT call

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Thanks so much for those of you who participated on today’s IRT call. For those of you who could not attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording, which will be available on the wiki shortly, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/09+January+2018[community.icann.org].

 

Today, we picked up our discussion of the IRT’s feedback on the PPAA draft in Section 3.12, and we proceeded through the end of the text of the contract (prior to the specifications). A brief high-level summary of the input received today is below.

 

IRT Action Items

  1. If you have further input on these or any other points discussed on the call, please send them to the list this week.
  2. If you have any further input on the PPAA draft, you must send this to the list this week.
  3. If you have further comments related to the distinction between requirements for affiliated and non-affiliated providers in the attached chart (first distributed in December), specifically related to the suggestion from some IRT members that ICANN should revisit the possibility of having a separate agreement for affiliates, you must send this to the list this week. If ICANN does not receive further input on this, we will continue to proceed with this single agreement.

 

ICANN Org Action Items

  1. ICANN Org will begin reviewing and incorporating IRT feedback on PPAA into next PPAA draft.
  2. ICANN Org will alert IRT to discussion topics for next week no later than EOD Friday.
  3. ICANN Org is finalizing next draft of other implementation materials (applicant guide, Policy document) for IRT review prior to opening public comment period. ICANN Org also must provide updated PPAA specifications to IRT for discussion so that these can be finalized prior to opening public comment period.
  4. Our aim is to finalize discussions on all materials identified above prior to ICANN61.

 

Summary of IRT Input Received on 9 January Call

 

Section 3.12: IRT members supported deleting the new text in 3.12.2 that was added to reference the LEA framework (this will be saved for the framework itself).

 

Section 3.14: IRT members supported deleting the new text that was added to reference text from the final report. In its place, text from the final report should be added to the IP framework specification.

 

Section 3.16 (Relay): IRT members recommended editing Section 3.16.2 to change “concerning” to “for Relay to” to narrow this provision to encompass only Relay requests. IRT members said ICANN should revisit 3.16.6, which appears to be too broad. It appears this section should apply only to section 3.16.5, and should be renumbered 3.16.5.1.

 

Section 3.17 (Reveal): In prior feedback, some IRT members said this was inconsistent with Final Report. IRT members are invited to identify how this is substantively different than the Final Report on-list if you would like to discuss this further. IRT members also said that ICANN should revisit 3.17 to ensure that Final Report requirements (p. 70) are included regarding customer notifications and notifications regarding a provider’s decision to comply with a request (or not).

 

Section 3.19 (Record Keeping): IRT members pointed ICANN to prior feedback re: suggested language on reporting mechanism. ICANN will revisit this recommendation and also check for an update re: the reporting interface.

 

Section 5.3 (Right to Substitute Amended Agreement): Copy edits previously suggested by Steve Metalitz—ICANN will revisit. This may have been drafted to mirror RAA, and consistency will be the goal if there is an analogous RAA provision.

 

Section 5.5 (Termination). IRT feedback is specifically requested on Section 5.5.9—right of ICANN to terminate a PPAA where an Affiliate’s PPAA or RAA is terminated. Initial IRT feedback indicated this may be too broad. Perhaps termination of affiliate agreement should be a reason to check compliance status rather than resulting in termination automatically.

 

Section 7.4 (Negotiation Process). This could be edited to remove reference to “Stakeholder Group” and this could be addressed if a Stakeholder Group/Constituency/ETC is ever created. Section 7.4.4.3—if this is a community-appointed WG (if “stakeholder group” deleted), this reference to bearing costs of mediation should be deleted.

 

Section 7.4.5.2. IRT members are encouraged to review this section specifically, in re: feedback on-list.

 

Section 7.5 (Synchronization Amendment). IRT members encouraged ICANN to review text that was previously suggested (see issues list) to simplify 7.5.1

 

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[icann.org]