Hi Margie,
Thanks for providing these comments ahead of today’s call!
On the first point, the IP framework is substantively identical to the framework included in the Policy recommendations, which did not include either of these points. I’d encourage you to raise these on the call today so that the group
can discuss whether these should be added.
On the second point (how will the IP holder know where to send requests), there are a few different ways the IP holder could obtain the provider’s contact information. The IP framework requires the provider to establish a point of contact
for reporting purposes and, pursuant to Section 3.12 of the PPAA draft, providers are required to post the abuse contact information on their website.
In addition, we are going to be discussing the RDDS labeling requirements again in a week or two. The current draft labeling specification would require that all registrations involving a Privacy/Proxy Service be labeled as such. The label
would be required to include a URL/link to the ICANN-managed listing of accredited providers, which will include each provider’s contact information.
I hope this helps, and thanks for starting this discussion!
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
From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 6:39 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call
Hi-
In advance of tomorrow’s call, here are a few issues to consider related to the IP related text:
Given the balance that this Policy attempts to strike, evidence of the use of high-volume, automated electronic processes for sending Requests or responses to Requests (without human review) to the systems of
Requesters, Providers, or Customers in performing any of the steps in the processes outlined in this Policy shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this Policy.
I may have missed this, but it seems the Agreement should include an obligation on the Provider to conduct a human review of the requests. Also, is there language regarding the rebuttable presumption of noncompliance
if there are high-volume automated electronic responses to a request?
All the best,
Margie
From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org>
Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM
To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call
Hello, All,
Thanks so much for your participation on today’s IRT call. I’ve updated the issues list (attached) with the input we received on this morning’s call. We have several outstanding discussion topics that we are requesting your feedback on
via the list this week (requested deadline of 21 August):
Thanks so much in advance for your consideration of these items. For next week’s call, we are planning to discuss:
If you have questions or comments in the interim, please don’t hesitate to send them to the list.
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