Hi all
I also agree with Theo and Darcy. In view of the GDPR legislation, this has to be considered in light of this agreement when moving forward with the P/P accreditation framework. We must include all issues which will have an effect rather than having to constantly amend the agreement. Whatever ICANN decide in view of the GDPR, certainly as a lawyer, my view will be that we will not contravene the legislation. It is absolutely right that we establish a programme that is going to work; if not, then this whole exercise will be drawn out and will make our workloads far heavier than is required.
We are currently reviewing the documents from a legal and operational perspective. Agreed we should focus on critical issues at our next call.
Many thanks
Lindsay
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Legal Counsel |
<image002.jpg> |
© 2015 All rights reserved. Fasthosts is the trading name of Fasthosts Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03656438. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 720821857. 1&1 is the trading name of 1&1 Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03953678. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 752539027. |
This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately and notify 1&1 on 0844 335 1211 or Fasthosts on 0333 0142 700. Any statements, opinions or information in this message are provided by the author, not on behalf of 1&1 and/or Fasthosts, unless subsequently confirmed by an individual who is authorised to represent 1&1 and/or Fasthosts. |
Well said, Darcy. Agree 100%.
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
I agree with Theo. The scope has changed and implementation is impacted by GDPR. While I appreciate that Steve wants to move forward expeditiously, I don’t believe we can do so without jeopardizing the creation of an effective program. Further, in just the last week or so, issues have been raised about implementation language contradicting the policy. The role of an IRT is to implement the consensus policy produced in the PDP and we need to spend sufficient time reviewing and discussing the implementation to ensure we’re not changing policy. Similarly, I think there were questions raised about the proposed framework Public Safety Working Group. In addition to policy creep, I believe concerns were expressed that staff failed to modify the proposed framework based on the feedback from IRT participants. Rather than picking through the documents line by line, it seems like we should step back and have a discussion about the concepts to ensure we’re making progress toward an effective implementation that reflects the policy. There have also been repeated questions raised about the over-engineering of this implementation. Because many of the meetings have focused on reviewing language from a specific section (rather than reviewing issues as whole items), it seems like we haven’t gotten past this issue, and should probably take a fresh look at that to ensure we’re not making this implementation more complicated than it needs to be. We all know that doesn’t lead us to a better implementation. Right now, we have four draft documents for review/input: (1) accreditation agreement, (2) de-accreditation process, (3) applicant guide, and (4) data escrow specification. For many members, these require operational and legal review (at a minimum). Many registrars have commented that 1 December is the earliest they can provide full feedback given the complexity of these documents (although not all have committed to that date).
Given these issues, as well as the fact that the privacy/proxy challenge stemming from IRTP-C needs to be added to this IRT for a solution, we need to take a step back and address these critical issues first. This isn’t about derailing the IRT; it’s about ensuring we don’t create an implementation that’s an operational nightmare for providers as well as registrants and end users – and that means addressing these critical issues first.
Thanks,
Darcy
Hi Steve, Vicky,
Now your argument is logical and makes sense.
Yes, as I mentioned before, CPH's will implement privacy services on many different levels to comply with the GDPR, we agree here.
My biggest problem with the PPSAI IRT is the changing dynamics.
The WG contemplated and discussed and made recommendations based on a very fixed situation.
In my opinion, privacy services should not be used as bandaid for data protection problems.
Complying with data protection laws was not the driving force during the WG days, and now it is.
I think the scope of the IRT has changed and we should deal with this before we move on. We need to think a little smarter and deeper here before we unleash this to many contracted parties who have zero experience with these services and will be required to implement this to comply with data protection laws.
So how do we do that? I think a fixed set of procedures and contractual agreements are essential, yet I do not want us to enter into a situation that causes more issues and forces providers into a situation that we need to ask compliance to defer.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contractual-compliance-statement-2017-11-02-en
I think that scenario is unwanted for everyone on the IRT is it not?
Thanks,
Theo Geurts
On 6-11-2017 19:40, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
I strongly second Vicky’s comments. The ongoing ICANN work re GDPR is of course very important, but let’s not let it derail progress on the path we have moved so far along toward a P/P service accreditation framework to present to the community.
In that regard, I have some sympathy (empathy?) for those requesting a relaxation of the comment deadline in light of so much other activity demanding our attention. May I suggest that we try to get as many proposed edits onto the list before our November 14 call (with much thanks to those who have already done so), with the goal of dealing with them then if possible, but leaving the door open for further edits over the next couple of weeks if necessary.
Finally, some ICANN groups are adjusting the scheduling of their calls to reflect the return to standard time in North America and Europe. Is this group doing so as well? If our calls stay at 1400 UTC that is now 9 am EST and 6 am for those on Pacific time. Moving to 1500 UTC would retain the pre-existing local start times, I believe.
Steve Metalitz
<image009.gif>
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
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.
Please note that ICANN’s work on GDPR’s on a separate track and that one thing we know almost for sure is that the adoption of rational, predictable rules for privacy/proxy will be more important post-GDPR than it ever was. So please let’s get those rules in place as expeditiously as possible.
On 30-10-2017 11:32, Sara Bockey wrote:
Caitlin,
Thanks for the revised docs. A few items at first glance that need to be revised, as I believe they have been discussion/raised before. I will take a closer look and follow up with additional edits, but in the meantime…
- Edit the definitions of Proxy Service and Privacy Service to match the definitions provided in the Final Report/2013 RAA
- The definitions of Privacy Service and Proxy Service reflect those in the 2013 RAA.
- In this context, the 2013 RAA also defines “Registered Name” as a domain name within the domain of a gTLD, about which a gTLD Registry Operator (or an Affiliate or subcontractor thereof engaged in providing Registry Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance, and “Registered Name Holder” is defined as the holder of a Registered Name.
- It’s noted that ICANN staff has replace “Registered Name Holder” with “Customer” in many instances, but I question the logic in that since it is inconsistent with the RAA.
- Edit Sections 3.5.3.3. thru 3.5.3.6 to take into consideration GDPR requirements regarding consent.
- Consent must be explicitly given for each purpose and can be withdrawn at any time and not a requirement for registration or use of the service. Therefore, 3.5.3.3. – 3.5.3.6 (at a minimum) are not compatible and must be revise.
- Edit section 3.12.2, as it still contains new language that has been added since the IRT agreement on language in August. The first sentence in its entirety should be removed.
- The section should start with “Well founded…”
Additionally, the following sections need revision or at a minimum further discuss by the IRT
- Edit Section 3.14 to remove the language re no automation. This is not feasible. This language must be removed:
- Provider shall not use high-volume, automated electronic processes (for example, processes that do not utilize human review) for sending Requests or responses to Requests to Requesters or Customers in performing any of the steps in the processes outlined in the Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification.
- Edit Section 3.15 – Labeling – to remove excessive language.
- Provider shall ensure that each Registered Name for which Provider is providing the Services is clearly labeled as such in the Registration Data Directory Service, as specified in the Labeling Specification attached hereto,
and shall otherwise comply with the requirements of the Labeling Specification attached hereto. This language is duplicative and not necessary. Let’s not add unnecessary words to this already long document. If there are doing to be extra works, perhaps mention complying with applicable local laws in light of GDPR.
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
Dear Colleagues,
During the call, we discussed an overview of the changes to the draft PPAA.
Please note that ICANN proposed a deadline of Tuesday, 14 November for all comments, concerns, and edits to the draft PPAA. The changes from the last iteration, provided to the IRT in July, have been highlighted in the attached issues list. Please respond to the list if you would like to request a longer review period.
During ICANN60, we will be presenting an overview of the P/P program’s status to the community. Attached, please find the slide deck for the presentation.
To highlight a few notes from the IRT’s discussion this morning, we received feedback to:
- Edit the definition of Working Group in Section 1.43, to specify that the Provider Stakeholder Group, if formed, shall only appoint the provider representatives of the Working Group, and the GNSO may appoint other members of the community.
- Add back in the previously-deleted Code of Conduct language in Section 3.5.1.
- Add back in the previously-deleted review provision in Section 7 of the Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification.
If you believe the above items do not reflect the intent of the Working Group’s recommendations, please reply to the list by14 November 2017.
Thank you, and safe travels to those of you attending ICANN 60!
Kind regards,
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
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl