Hi all,

Couple of comments regarding last weeks call.

The definition of abuse. The PIC spec covers most if not all forms of abuse.

The problem with the definition is that it does not cover what should go where.
As mentioned on the call, this is the complex part to answer.
Alex Deacon mentioned the framework for copyrights.

I think if we start working on that framework we will get more clarity.
In an ideal world the PSWG would also provide their input real soon, with the combination of frameworks we should be able to see the big picture and select what goes where in terms of abuse. As such the complex question becomes less complex.


Testing or monitoring of the email address.
The current draft section 6.1.2 mentions verification. This would imply that only verified contacts/email addresses can use a privacy service. Most, if not all verification is being preformed through email, so we will know that the email address is working when ordering a privacy service.

As email addresses can stop functioning for many reasons monitoring might be required, however the RAA 2013 already has language on what to do when a Registrar becomes aware an email address is no longer working. So monitoring in an active sense is not required. Registrars been dealing with this since 2013.

Other requirements in section 6 could also apply when it comes to making sure the email address works. Flexibillity is key here though.

Best regards,

Theo Geurts

Dear Colleagues,

 

At the next Privacy/Proxy Service Provider Accreditation IRT meeting, scheduled for 11 April 2017, 1400 UTC, we will have a follow-up discussion on two topics we have discussed previously:

 

·         Whether registrars should authenticate accredited privacy/proxy providers that are not affiliated with the registrar; and

·         Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS) labeling requirements.

 

Because we want to discuss these topics from a technical standpoint, Francisco Arias, Sr. Director, GDD Technical Services, will be with us on the call. Our goal is to ensure that our implementation with respect to these topics is consistent with the intent of the Policy Recommendations and technically sound.

 

We initially discussed the possibility of requiring registrars to authenticate unaffiliated privacy/proxy providers during our face-to-face meeting at ICANN58 as a way to implement the recommendation "Registrars are not to knowingly accept registrations from privacy or proxy service providers who are not accredited through the process developed by ICANN." A summary of your input on this topic is attached. A requirement that a registrar authenticate that an entity that presents itself as an accredited provider is, in fact, an accredited provider, would provide certainty in the overall marketplace. We would like to discuss our reasoning with you further and solicit your feedback.

 

As you may recall, we first discussed RDDS labeling on our 14 February IRT call. During that meeting we discussed an ICANN-organization proposal for new RDDS fields for registrations involving privacy/proxy services. A summary of your input on this topic is attached. We would like to discuss potential technical reasons why at least one new field could be a more viable alternative for RDDS users to using existing fields and possible challenges to using existing fields.

 

We look forward to a robust discussion and hope you can participate. Our goal is to reach agreement on these topics by the close of the call. If you have questions or comments beforehand, please send them to the list.

 

Best,

Amy

 

Amy E. Bivins

Registrar Policy Services 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

 

_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl