I also agree with this approach. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog / http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "DiBiase, Gregory via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Reply-To: "DiBiase, Gregory" <dibiase@amazon.com>, "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Wednesday 11 January 2017 at 21:31 To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PP Policy Section 1, update from 1/10 IRT call Hello All, Roger’s approach makes sense to me. Registrars should treat registrations with unaccredited providers as inaccurate Whois and allow the registrant to decide on the appropriate remedy. Thanks, Greg From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:07 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PP Policy Section 1, update from 1/10 IRT call Good Afternoon, I think Theo is going down the right path and it should be simple, but I would like to add some additional ideas/thoughts. Theo mentions contacting the registrant and having them select/choose an accredited provider. I think we would want to leave the remedy solution up to the registrant, e.g. replace with an accredited provider, use their own information, delete the registration… One additional thought was on awareness/learning/teaching. One good reason I could see to notify ICANN of this incident is for an awareness/teaching opportunity. A provider may not be aware they are required to be accredited. I think that if a Registrar detects a pattern of use of an un-accredited provider they should notify ICANN and ICANN would work with the identified provider on awareness/accreditation. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:49 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PP Policy Section 1, update from 1/10 IRT call Thanks so much for this feedback, Theo. I'm interested to hear what other members of the IRT think about this--do you think this would fulfil the intent of the PDP WG and/or do you have other thoughts? Thank you! Amy -----Original Message----- From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 7:48 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PP Policy Section 1, update from 1/10 IRT call Hi Amy, all, Looking at C3, I think we can approach this more low key and might not require a sub team for this section. Registrars already deal with made up privacy services by Registrant for whatever reason, and when the Registrar becomes aware, most of us treat it as an inaccurate whois and apply current procedures. Nothing new so far. The same logic can be applied when a Registrar becomes aware that domains are being registered through an unaccredited P/P service. The Registrar contacts the reseller or Registrant to correct the situation and use an accredited alternative P/P service within 15 days. I do not think we should come up with a system where we are going to report non-accredited P/P services to ICANN and create a lot of work for nothing. I expect we all got better things to do. Am I missing anything? Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2017-01-11 02:30 AM:
Thank you for catching that, Greg! I added that. Also, I noticed that
I did not delete the sentence before this as I should have, given that
this new sentence replaces it, so I also made that change. The updated
document is attached.
Best,
Amy
FROM: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF DiBiase,
Gregory via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
SENT: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 4:04 PM
TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>
SUBJECT: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PP Policy Section 1, update
from 1/10 IRT call
Hi Amy,
In section 1.e.i I think we need to reference privacy service
customers. We added privacy service providers but not their
customers.
"This Policy does not distinguish between Proxy Service Customers who
are engaged in commercial or non-commercial activity, and does not
require any accredited privacy or proxy service provider to do so."
Thanks,
Greg
FROM: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Amy Bivins
SENT: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:18 AM
TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>
SUBJECT: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PP Policy Section 1, update
from 1/10 IRT call
Hello, All,
Thanks so much for your active participation on our IRT call today--I
think we can all agree that we made substantial progress! I am
attaching an updated draft of Section 1 of the policy, incorporating
edits after our call today and some new comments that were received
after the Friday deadline. IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
THIS, PLEASE SEND THEM TO THE LIST THIS WEEK WHILE THE DISCUSSION IS
STILL FRESH ON EVERYONE’S MINDS. I CLEANED UP THIS DOCUMENT BY
DELETING THE COMMENTS AND MAKING A COUPLE OF EDITS THAT I BELIEVE WERE
ADDRESSED ON THE CALL (BUT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY CHANGES THAT WERE
MADE PLEASE LET ME KNOW).
For those who were not on the call, please review the call materials
and listen to the recording this week. We had a very robust
discussion.
There was general support on the call to begin meeting weekly, so we
will update our meeting schedule to start that next week. If anyone
who was not on the call wishes to weigh in on this, please reply to
the list. As you will hear on the recording, there was general
agreement on the call to work to expedite our pace, to the extent that
we can without sacrificing the quality of our output. So the first
step on that is to start meeting weekly.
I will distribute materials for next week's call no later than Monday,
and the materials from today's call should be up on the wiki shortly.
If you have questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me
directly or reply to the list (preferred, so that everyone can see).
Also, a reminder that any feedback on the LEA framework principles
document (distributed to the LEA issues subteam and available on the
wiki) should be sent to the list NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, 13 JANUARY. And
I will be following up with the registrars who spoke up on the call
about starting subteam work related to developing a proposed process
that we will fit in to Section 1 C (when a registrar/reseller becomes
aware of registrations involving an unaccredited privacy or proxy
service).
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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> [1]
Links:
------
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>
Hello, All, _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl