![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6010470239fd9494b4d5bff417bf311b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello all, Some feedback for the items discussed in this thread. 3.5.4.1 - I support Sara's suggested language. 5.7.1 - Blocking new registrations will present technical challenges and still just not sure how we can achieve it (whether affiliated with an ICANN ID or not). And maybe something to keep in mind - t hose applying are doing so in order to obtain the right to provide privacy/proxy as a service . And if those providers were to be in violation , they could lose their right to offering that service. D o we intend for it to also mean they lose the right to doing registrations also ? Having this section feels like it would suggest that. Regards, Eric On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. We made a lot of progress. If you were unable to attend, the recording and materials are available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/01+August+2017.
I’ve updated the issues list (attached) for the topics discussed today (Issues 5, 6, 9, 10, 13) based on your feedback.
*IRT Action Items*
1. Please provide any additional input you have on issues 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13 *no later than next Monday, 7 August.* In particular, please consider the following questions that arose during today’s meeting: 1. Regarding issue 6 (Section 3.5.4.1 of the draft PPAA), should we consider reducing the required period from 15 days to some shortened period? If yes, do you have recommendations for what the shortened time period should be? 2. Regarding issue 13 (PPAA section 5.7.1): (i) Is it feasible for a registrar to block new registrations from a suspended provider (provided that provider is identified by its ICANN ID during the registration process)? (IRT input on this point has been mixed); (ii) If the answer to (i) is yes, is any additional language required with respect to Point 5 raised during the call (“sounds like we need an EPP for PP Providers”)? 2. Please complete the IRT poll re: data escrow and additional PPAA discussion topics no later than Friday, 4 August, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS>
*Next Week*
Next week, we plan to discuss Issues 4 and 23(data retention), 12 (accreditation term), 15 (Customer Data Accuracy Spec), 17-19 (LEA Specification). We will discuss data retention and the LEA specification first, to ensure we can discuss both of these while we have our PSWG colleagues on the call.
Thanks in advance for your continued consideration of the issues discussed today and your completion of the poll. If you have questions or comments before our next meeting, please 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 <(202)%20249-7551>
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 <(202)%20789-0104>
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