Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call
Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February-this came up briefly on today's call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call-I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true-there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today's call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the "or" is to accommodate privacy services where the customer's name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider's name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the "unaffiliated provider" issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don't hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
Thanks Amy, The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows. Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples. Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar. * Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider. Operational issues: * The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner. Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point? Best regards, Theo Geurts On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/
*_IRT Action Items_*
(1)*Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday*. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll.
(2)*Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday*. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information.
**
*The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll.*
**
(3)Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible.
There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable.
Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions.
*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 <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org <http://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
Thanks, Theo! Theo and all, as you are considering this issue, please try to provide clear arguments as to why unaffiliated providers are untenable, from your perspective, if you take this point of view. Please keep in mind that we might be able to develop other solutions to challenges that do not go as far as placing a limitation on the existence of accredited providers that are not affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar. If we were to consider asking for additional Council guidance on this topic, we would likely need (a) clear support from a broad base of the IRT members and (b) clear reasons why the IRT believes the prospect of unaffiliated providers is untenable and cannot be mitigated. For example, for the data escrow-related challenges you mentioned below, could these be addressed through other means, such as (a) requiring the escrow of registrar-related information and/or (b) possibly limiting the number of registrars an accredited provider could register through (I am not suggesting that these are good or easy solutions, and these have not been vetted by the ICANN project team—I thought of these in the moment and these should not be interpreted as ICANN org recommendations). Could other solutions to these issues, and the other issues raised by Theo, be explored? Thanks so much for your active participation and input on this important topic. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:37 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue Thanks Amy, The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows. Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples. Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar. * Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider. Operational issues: * The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner. Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point? Best regards, Theo Geurts On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMD-g&c...> _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Theo, Can you expand on your comment that “RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated.”? I don’t have quick access to the final report but is it not the case that all accredited P/P services data will be escrowed? Even those that are non-affiliated? I’m sure the interim policy in the RAA has an escrow requirement. If this is the case then ICANN should have access to the data from the RDE deposit. Regarding the scenario that email relay is not working or the website is not functional - what policies are in place if this happens when a registrar goes out of biz? Putting aside for now the P/P use case and thinking about a similar scenario where a Registrar goes out of biz and the email to the registrant fails, is there policy/implementation that we can leverage/reuse/reference? (I understand the scale is different – but am hoping this kind of issue has been addressed/solved before.) Thanks. Alex Alex Deacon Senior VP, Internet Technology Motion Picture Association of America alex_deacon@mpaa.org +1.415.802.9776 Twitter: @_AlexDeacon -----Original Message----- From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue Thanks Amy, The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows. Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples. Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar. * Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider. Operational issues: * The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner. Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point? Best regards, Theo Geurts On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Hi Alex, Let me reword this better. RDE Deposit Registrars. You can match the deposit with the amount the of domain names under management. Registrars are also required to provide the real registrant data within the deposit and the data as mentioned in the whois. So this can be verified. But you do not have that authoritative information with a non-affiliated third party provider. Unless I am missing something? Or do we require NA-TPPP customers to provide to the NA-TPPP wich Registrar they are using and this will be escrowed? I did not consider as I came up with the following issues. -Transfers -Ownership Changes -How would you track this all? -Risk of incorrect Registrar being supplied by the Registrant will reflect in escrow and as such faulty escrow records Again, I think it all boils down to the verifiable authoritative data right? If you cannot verify it, the escrow deposit will have no value and provide a false sense of security for registrants. Best regards, Theo Geurts Deacon, Alex schreef op 2017-05-31 02:31 AM:
Hi Theo,
Can you expand on your comment that “RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated.”? I don’t have quick access to the final report but is it not the case that all accredited P/P services data will be escrowed? Even those that are non-affiliated? I’m sure the interim policy in the RAA has an escrow requirement. If this is the case then ICANN should have access to the data from the RDE deposit.
Regarding the scenario that email relay is not working or the website is not functional - what policies are in place if this happens when a registrar goes out of biz? Putting aside for now the P/P use case and thinking about a similar scenario where a Registrar goes out of biz and the email to the registrant fails, is there policy/implementation that we can leverage/reuse/reference? (I understand the scale is different – but am hoping this kind of issue has been addressed/solved before.)
Thanks.
Alex
Alex Deacon Senior VP, Internet Technology Motion Picture Association of America alex_deacon@mpaa.org +1.415.802.9776 Twitter: @_AlexDeacon
-----Original Message----- From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue
Thanks Amy,
The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows.
Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples.
Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar.
* Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason
Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider.
Operational issues:
* The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational
* If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner.
Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point?
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/
IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information.
The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll.
(3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible.
There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable.
Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions.
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 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.orghttps://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
This is not even that far fetched an example, it exists right now in many ccTLDs where law firms offer trustee or local presence services for customers of multiple registrars. They usually have a direct agreement with the registrants mediated by the respective sponsoring registrar and/or its resellers, however the first contact usually only occurs after a complaint is received. In other cases, law firms may provide the same services for hand-picked registrants who simply have the permission to use the registration details of the law firm for their registration with any registrar they may choose. De-accrediting such a provider would require a lot of additional information not currently required: - information which registrars / resellers the provider is working through - information which domain names are registered using the information of the provider Volker Am 30.05.2017 um 20:37 schrieb theo geurts:
Thanks Amy,
The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows.
Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples.
Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar.
* Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason
Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider.
Operational issues:
* The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner.
Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point?
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/
*_IRT Action Items_*
(1)*Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday*. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll.
(2)*Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday*. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information.
**
*The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll.*
**
(3)Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible.
There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable.
Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions.
*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 <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org <http://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
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thanks for this example, Theo. @Amy, Can staff provide clarification tomorrow on the Final Report’s position about P/P providers unaffiliated with an accredited registrar? I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the IRT to decide whether unaffiliated P/P providers are allowable. Seems like the IRT may be creeping into policy development. Thanks, Darcy From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue Thanks Amy, The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows. Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples. Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar. Total domain names 100.000 Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider. Operational issues: The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner. Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point? Best regards, Theo Geurts On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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 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 _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Good idea Darcy, I think Steve's idea to work on this in a subgroup is also a good idea. Either we come up with a solution, wich would be good, or not but then we have something with substance to kick it back to the GNSO. Best, Theo Geurts On 5-6-2017 20:59, Darcy Southwell wrote:
Thanks for this example, Theo.
@Amy, Can staff provide clarification tomorrow on the Final Report’s position about P/P providers unaffiliated with an accredited registrar? I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the IRT to decide whether unaffiliated P/P providers are allowable. Seems like the IRT may be creeping into policy development.
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> *Reply-To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue
Thanks Amy,
The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows.
Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples.
Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar.
* Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason
Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider.
Operational issues:
* The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner.
Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point?
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/
*_IRT Action Items_*
(1)*Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday*. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll.
(2)*Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday*. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information.
**
*The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll.*
**
(3)Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible.
There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable.
Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions.
*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 <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks all. For tomorrow's call, I will provide some additional context from the final report and we can discuss how best to proceed in trying to address the challenges that have been raised, keeping in mind that we are bound by the scope of the Final Recommendations. We will be talking more about process than substance on this point, and once we identify a path forward we will transition the discussion over to Nick Shorey's presentation. Best, Amy Sent from my iPhone On Jun 5, 2017, at 3:23 PM, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> wrote: Good idea Darcy, I think Steve's idea to work on this in a subgroup is also a good idea. Either we come up with a solution, wich would be good, or not but then we have something with substance to kick it back to the GNSO. Best, Theo Geurts On 5-6-2017 20:59, Darcy Southwell wrote: Thanks for this example, Theo. @Amy, Can staff provide clarification tomorrow on the Final Report’s position about P/P providers unaffiliated with an accredited registrar? I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the IRT to decide whether unaffiliated P/P providers are allowable. Seems like the IRT may be creeping into policy development. Thanks, Darcy From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl><mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org><mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue Thanks Amy, The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers (NA-TPPP) is as follows. Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an example. There are many more examples. Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services. The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a Registrar. * Total domain names 100.000 * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason Now the law firm goes under for some reason. ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit from the escrow provider. Operational issues: * The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated. * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay, most likely will not be operational * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update, Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner. Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at some point? Best regards, Theo Geurts On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMDaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet the deadlines you have set. Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I was raising on yesterday's call was not asked about in the February questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve compliance with the accreditation standards. Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday's call, I support option (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply be baffled to find that the registrant is "P/P Provider, PP #123." A link to the page from which more information about who is providing the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on the call yesterday - but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs, such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical problems that have ensued. Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 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. From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/<https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/> IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February-this came up briefly on today's call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call-I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true-there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today's call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the "or" is to accommodate privacy services where the customer's name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider's name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the "unaffiliated provider" issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don't hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
Thanks so much, Steve! What do others on the IRT think about making portions of successful applications for accreditation public? I'll note that while portions of new gTLD applications were published, no portion of registrar applications for accreditation are published. On the third point, regarding unaffiliated providers-good idea re: possibly working through some of these issues in a smaller group. I'd encourage everyone on the list to please share any potential issues (and potential solutions!) that you can see on the horizon for these types of providers, and we can discuss next steps on Tuesday's call (along with the PSWG's proposal, which I understand should be ready for distribution before the call). Best, Amy From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:13 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet the deadlines you have set. Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I was raising on yesterday's call was not asked about in the February questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve compliance with the accreditation standards. Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday's call, I support option (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply be baffled to find that the registrant is "P/P Provider, PP #123." A link to the page from which more information about who is providing the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on the call yesterday - but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs, such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical problems that have ensued. Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 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. 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, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February-this came up briefly on today's call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call-I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true-there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today's call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the "or" is to accommodate privacy services where the customer's name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider's name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the "unaffiliated provider" issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don't hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
Good Morning, 1. As Steve suggests, I am not opposed to providing some of the applicant information post accreditation (contract). I don't have any suggestions of exactly what should be published/shared, this would be something that the group would need to dig into. 2. As I stated on the call, I am very much opposed to putting a URL in the suggested fields (Registrant Name/Org). Generally, mixing of types/meaning in a single field is considered poor data management practice. Additionally, many (arguable most) of the WHOIS queries are automated lookups, parsing of this field will become increasingly more difficult with "non" name data in these fields. As Steve mentioned the WHOIS inaccuracy URL was added but it was just an addition to the end of the WHOIS output, it was not integrated into some other data field. If the suggestion is to put this new URL at the end of the WHOIS output, that may be more acceptable. 3. I do like Steve's approach to the unaffiliated topic, I don't think it is an insolvable problem, but definitely a difficult scenario. The PDPs final report clearly stated that they recognized the complexity in this specific topic. Thanks Roger ________________________________ From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:32 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thanks so much, Steve! What do others on the IRT think about making portions of successful applications for accreditation public? I’ll note that while portions of new gTLD applications were published, no portion of registrar applications for accreditation are published. On the third point, regarding unaffiliated providers—good idea re: possibly working through some of these issues in a smaller group. I’d encourage everyone on the list to please share any potential issues (and potential solutions!) that you can see on the horizon for these types of providers, and we can discuss next steps on Tuesday’s call (along with the PSWG’s proposal, which I understand should be ready for distribution before the call). Best, Amy From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:13 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet the deadlines you have set. Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I was raising on yesterday’s call was not asked about in the February questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve compliance with the accreditation standards. Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday’s call, I support option (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply be baffled to find that the registrant is “P/P Provider, PP #123.” A link to the page from which more information about who is providing the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on the call yesterday – but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs, such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical problems that have ensued. Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 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. 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, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
Hi, Regarding item #2 my takeaway from the discussion was that because Registrant Name was sometimes used for the registrant name (in the privacy case), that any indications regarding the use of P/P should thus be included in the Registrant Organization field. This would eliminate the need to specify that this data be included in the Registrant Org field *or* Registrant Name field – keeping things simple. As for including a static ICANN P/P URL in the field, I appreciate Rogers concern about mixing and matching types and meaning – it’s a hack. However, I don’t agree with the statement that parsing any string with a URL is more difficult to do – especially by those performing automated lookups. One way to simply address this issue is to define field deliminators to assist in the regexp’s required to parse the data from the string. Of course, if these hacks and the issue of mixing and matching types and meaning are a concern then the best solution would be to define a new field. Finally, I’m intrigued by Rogers suggestion to add this URL (and perhaps other information) at the end of the WHOIS output. Is this idea worth further discussion? How is this kind of data handled in the RDAP world? Alex -----Original Message----- From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:03 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Good Morning, 1. As Steve suggests, I am not opposed to providing some of the applicant information post accreditation (contract). I don't have any suggestions of exactly what should be published/shared, this would be something that the group would need to dig into. 2. As I stated on the call, I am very much opposed to putting a URL in the suggested fields (Registrant Name/Org). Generally, mixing of types/meaning in a single field is considered poor data management practice. Additionally, many (arguable most) of the WHOIS queries are automated lookups, parsing of this field will become increasingly more difficult with "non" name data in these fields. As Steve mentioned the WHOIS inaccuracy URL was added but it was just an addition to the end of the WHOIS output, it was not integrated into some other data field. If the suggestion is to put this new URL at the end of the WHOIS output, that may be more acceptable. 3. I do like Steve's approach to the unaffiliated topic, I don't think it is an insolvable problem, but definitely a difficult scenario. The PDPs final report clearly stated that they recognized the complexity in this specific topic. Thanks Roger ________________________________________ From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:32 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thanks so much, Steve! What do others on the IRT think about making portions of successful applications for accreditation public? I’ll note that while portions of new gTLD applications were published, no portion of registrar applications for accreditation are published. On the third point, regarding unaffiliated providers—good idea re: possibly working through some of these issues in a smaller group. I’d encourage everyone on the list to please share any potential issues (and potential solutions!) that you can see on the horizon for these types of providers, and we can discuss next steps on Tuesday’s call (along with the PSWG’s proposal, which I understand should be ready for distribution before the call). Best, Amy From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:13 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet the deadlines you have set. Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I was raising on yesterday’s call was not asked about in the February questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve compliance with the accreditation standards. Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday’s call, I support option (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply be baffled to find that the registrant is “P/P Provider, PP #123.” A link to the page from which more information about who is providing the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on the call yesterday – but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs, such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical problems that have ensued. Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed. Steve Metalitz Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP|www.msk.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msk.com%...> 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. 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, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fparticipate...> IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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 <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.or...>
Hi Roger, URL on the bottom of the WHOIS output, I am not against the idea, but the idea is then that this URL is always shown in the WHOIS regardless if the domain name is privacy protected or not? The reason for asking, in the case of an NA-TPPP, the Registrar or a Registry would not know if the domain name is privacy protected or not. Thanks, Theo On 2-6-2017 17:03, Roger D Carney wrote:
Good Morning,
1. As Steve suggests, I am not opposed to providing some of the applicant information post accreditation (contract). I don't have any suggestions of exactly what should be published/shared, this would be something that the group would need to dig into. 2. As I stated on the call, I am very much opposed to putting a URL in the suggested fields (Registrant Name/Org). Generally, mixing of types/meaning in a single field is considered poor data management practice. Additionally, many (arguable most) of the WHOIS queries are automated lookups, parsing of this field will become increasingly more difficult with "non" name data in these fields. As Steve mentioned the WHOIS inaccuracy URL was added but it was just an addition to the end of the WHOIS output, it was not integrated into some other data field. If the suggestion is to put this new URL at the end of the WHOIS output, that may be more acceptable. 3. I do like Steve's approach to the unaffiliated topic, I don't think it is an insolvable problem, but definitely a difficult scenario. The PDPs final report clearly stated that they recognized the complexity in this specific topic.
Thanks
Roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:32 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call
Thanks so much, Steve!
What do others on the IRT think about making portions of successful applications for accreditation public? I’ll note that while portions of new gTLD applications were published, no portion of registrar applications for accreditation are published.
On the third point, regarding unaffiliated providers—good idea re: possibly working through some of these issues in a smaller group. I’d encourage everyone on the list to please share any potential issues (and potential solutions!) that you can see on the horizon for these types of providers, and we can discuss next steps on Tuesday’s call (along with the PSWG’s proposal, which I understand should be ready for distribution before the call).
Best,
Amy
*From:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:13 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call
Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet the deadlines you have set.
Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I was raising on yesterday’s call was not asked about in the February questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve compliance with the accreditation standards.
Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday’s call, I support option (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply be baffled to find that the registrant is “P/P Provider, PP #123.” A link to the page from which more information about who is providing the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on the call yesterday – but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs, such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical problems that have ensued.
Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed.
Steve Metalitz
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>**
*Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
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.*
*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, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ <https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/>
*_IRT Action Items_*
(1)*Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday*. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll.
(2)*Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today’s call no later than Friday*. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information.
**
*The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll.*
**
(3)Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible.
There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable.
Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions.
*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 <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org <http://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
Good Morning, Good point Theo, something that the IRT would need to talk through. Thanks Roger From: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2017 1:37 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Hi Roger, URL on the bottom of the WHOIS output, I am not against the idea, but the idea is then that this URL is always shown in the WHOIS regardless if the domain name is privacy protected or not? The reason for asking, in the case of an NA-TPPP, the Registrar or a Registry would not know if the domain name is privacy protected or not. Thanks, Theo On 2-6-2017 17:03, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Morning, 1. As Steve suggests, I am not opposed to providing some of the applicant information post accreditation (contract). I don't have any suggestions of exactly what should be published/shared, this would be something that the group would need to dig into. 2. As I stated on the call, I am very much opposed to putting a URL in the suggested fields (Registrant Name/Org). Generally, mixing of types/meaning in a single field is considered poor data management practice. Additionally, many (arguable most) of the WHOIS queries are automated lookups, parsing of this field will become increasingly more difficult with "non" name data in these fields. As Steve mentioned the WHOIS inaccuracy URL was added but it was just an addition to the end of the WHOIS output, it was not integrated into some other data field. If the suggestion is to put this new URL at the end of the WHOIS output, that may be more acceptable. 3. I do like Steve's approach to the unaffiliated topic, I don't think it is an insolvable problem, but definitely a difficult scenario. The PDPs final report clearly stated that they recognized the complexity in this specific topic. Thanks Roger ________________________________ From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org><mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:32 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thanks so much, Steve! What do others on the IRT think about making portions of successful applications for accreditation public? I'll note that while portions of new gTLD applications were published, no portion of registrar applications for accreditation are published. On the third point, regarding unaffiliated providers-good idea re: possibly working through some of these issues in a smaller group. I'd encourage everyone on the list to please share any potential issues (and potential solutions!) that you can see on the horizon for these types of providers, and we can discuss next steps on Tuesday's call (along with the PSWG's proposal, which I understand should be ready for distribution before the call). 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:13 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet the deadlines you have set. Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I was raising on yesterday's call was not asked about in the February questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve compliance with the accreditation standards. Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday's call, I support option (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply be baffled to find that the registrant is "P/P Provider, PP #123." A link to the page from which more information about who is providing the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on the call yesterday - but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs, such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical problems that have ensued. Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 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. 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, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/ IRT Action Items (1) Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1 applicant guide (attached) by Friday. We will be discussing again and there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in February-this came up briefly on today's call. I apologize that I over-stated the point referenced today on the call-I said that the majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP Provider application and/or the contents of an application for accreditation should not be made public. This is true-there was a slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions, but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of participants was relatively low for this poll. (2) Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals discussed on today's call no later than Friday. For those not on the call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the registrant organization field (the "or" is to accommodate privacy services where the customer's name appears in the Registrant Name field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider's name, ICANN ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers and contact information. The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this to a poll. (3) Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the "unaffiliated provider" issue raised by the registrar subteam today on the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable or impossible. There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should be taken as soon as practicable. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don't hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have additional comments or questions. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Amy Bivins -
Darcy Southwell -
Deacon, Alex -
gtheo -
Metalitz, Steven -
Roger D Carney -
theo geurts
-
Volker Greimann