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/17+October+2017.

During the call, we discussed:

1. The attached PP Data Escrow Specification.  The IRT members on the call were OK with the proposed Specification, as it is similar to what registrars use today. 
2. The attached updated PPAA (PPAA_redline_10Oct).  During the call, we discussed:

• the definition of Working Group in section 1.43.  Some members of the IRT proposed that if there is a Provider Stakeholder Group in the future, the Provider Stakeholder Group should only be permitted to appoint the Service Provider representatives of the Working Group, rather than all members of the Working Group.  Other members of the IRT noted that because the contract is between ICANN and the Service Provider, the definition of Working Group should mirror the Working definition in the RA/RAA.  We tried to strike a balance between these positions in the updated draft PPAA_redline_17Oct.

• Section 3.12.2 – some members of the IRT expressed concern that the IRT had previously agreed to remove the “monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week” language from 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 but to keep the “respond within 24 hours” language under 3.12.2.  Please note the “monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week” language has been removed from the latest draft, PPAA_redline_17Oct. 

• Section 5.2 the renewal provision – a member of the IRT asked if language should be added that Providers cannot renew under an old form of the PPAA if a new version or global amendment goes into effect.  This concern seems to be addressed in Section 5.3 of the agreement, which deals with ICANN’s right to substitute an updated agreement.  Additionally, if the P/P Consensus Policy were ever changed/amended, the Policy would supersede the corresponding provisions in the PPAA.

• Section 5.5.2.4 – Section 5.5 provides reasons under which ICANN can terminate the Service Provider’s Agreement.  A member of the IRT noted that “a pattern and practice of trafficking in or use of domain names identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark of a third party in which the Customer has no rights or legitimate interest, which trademarks have been registered and are being used in bad faith” is a reason for termination of the agreement but is not something addressed in the application/background screening.  Further to that feedback, the updated application (v6) adds this question as part of the background screening questions.

On Tuesday, 24 Oct, we will continue discussing the PPAA.  I have attached a list that details the changes to the PPAA.  If you have any specific concerns prior to the call, please feel free to respond to the list.

Kind regards,

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