Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review
Dear Colleagues, Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. Also, please provide any final feedback on the LEA framework and reporting specification no later than this Friday, 2 March. We plan to update this draft with respect to feedback received on those issues next week as we prepare these materials for the public comment period. Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this PPAA draft: 1. Non-substantive copy edits throughout 2. Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at Section 3.15. 3. Reporting specification (and references to this specification) added. Specification remains under IRT review (deadline for feedback 2 March). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final IRT feedback. 4. Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation processes-See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as recommended by the IRT. 5. All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section 3.5.3.17 (regarding cancellations of services related to names that are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) 6. Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, as directed by the Final Report. 7. Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being "capable and authorized to investigate..." from the Final Report had been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). 8. Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. 9. Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic processes..." in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification. 10. Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section 5.7.3) 11. Several clean-up edits in Specification 1, Data Escrow Specification. ICANN is currently reviewing the inclusion of this Specification in the PPAA itself, as opposed to the RAA format which has the escrow specification separate from the accreditation agreement. As technical requirements/RFCs may be updated from time to time, there are benefits to having this outside the PPAA itself. IRT feedback is requested on this topic. 12. Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is registered. 13. Specification 4: Law Enforcement Authority Specification. This specification is currently under final IRT review (deadline for feedback 2 March). Substantive edits may be made after this review period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for greater clarity. 14. Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see Section 1.1.6). 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, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM:
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented.
Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this PPAA draft:
* Non-substantive copy edits throughout * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at Section 3.15. * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final IRT feedback. * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as recommended by the IRT. * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section 3.5.3.17 (regarding cancellations of services related to names that are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, as directed by the Final Report. * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification. * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section 5.7.3) * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is registered. * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for greater clarity. * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see Section 1.1.6).
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] 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, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far. It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list. However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that? And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests? Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Thanks Amy, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM:
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented.
Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this PPAA draft:
* Non-substantive copy edits throughout * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at Section 3.15. * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final IRT feedback. * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as recommended by the IRT. * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section 3.5.3.17 (regarding cancellations of services related to names that are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, as directed by the Final Report. * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification. * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section 5.7.3) * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is registered. * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for greater clarity. * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see Section 1.1.6).
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c... _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Agree with Theo 100%, we have been wading around in the policy making pool far too much for an IRT. Additionally, for me, defining "action" does not really address the issue. The issue is that having a contractual obligation of 24 hours is too strict. I have put forward numerous suggestions as starting points for discussing a potential compromise to no end. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. On 3/1/18, 8:52 AM, "Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl on behalf of Amy Bivins" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org on behalf of amy.bivins@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Theo, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far. It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list. However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that? And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests? Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Thanks Amy, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline > versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final > report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). > The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation > program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of > the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. > > Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared > to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL > FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER > THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT > TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE > MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. > > Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this > PPAA draft: > > * Non-substantive copy edits throughout > * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) > deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared > to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at > Section 3.15. > * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) > ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 > MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these > are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the > publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be > updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final > IRT feedback. > * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation > processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to > eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now > be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as > recommended by the IRT. > * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain > registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a > breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per > IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section > 3.5.3.17 (regarding cancellations of services related to names that > are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) > * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has > been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements > for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, > as directed by the Final Report. > * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match > language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being > "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had > been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). > * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text > (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now > included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic > processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property > Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may > continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section > 5.7.3) > * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW > SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS > SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH > HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION > AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO > TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT > FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. > * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit > to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins > providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is > registered. > * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS > SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR > FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review > period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members > regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt > process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the > time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" > request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for > greater clarity. > * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has > been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see > Section 1.1.6). > > 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 [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c... > _______________________________________________ > 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
Dear Colleagues, I want to follow up on the point raised about "making policy," as this has been raised before. The IRT is not a forum for making policy--we are here to implement the final policy recommendations developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process. If members of the IRT believe that we are veering into the realm of policymaking, the GNSO liaison to the IRT may raise the issue with the GNSO Council. With respect to this issue, staff leading this effort do not view any of the IRT's work as "making policy," for a variety of reasons. The Final Report did not contain a LEA framework, the way it did for IP, but it certainly contemplated that an LEA framework might be created in the future (the Final Report included recommendations to be implemented in any future framework). In addition, no concerns were raised during the mandatory public comment period preceding the Board's adoption of the PDP recommendations and treatment of GAC advice on this topic. There's a difference between various groups in the IRT not being able to agree on a point of implementation and making policy. This difference of opinion, in staff's view, falls in the prior category. We plan to seek community feedback on this point during the public comment period and the GNSO Council could be invited to weigh in during that period, as well. Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Agree with Theo 100%, we have been wading around in the policy making pool far too much for an IRT. Additionally, for me, defining "action" does not really address the issue. The issue is that having a contractual obligation of 24 hours is too strict. I have put forward numerous suggestions as starting points for discussing a potential compromise to no end. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. On 3/1/18, 8:52 AM, "Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl on behalf of Amy Bivins" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org on behalf of amy.bivins@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Theo, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far. It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list. However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that? And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests? Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Thanks Amy, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline > versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final > report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). > The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation > program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of > the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. > > Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared > to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL > FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER > THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT > TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE > MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. > > Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this > PPAA draft: > > * Non-substantive copy edits throughout > * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) > deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared > to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at > Section 3.15. > * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) > ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 > MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these > are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the > publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be > updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final > IRT feedback. > * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation > processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to > eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now > be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as > recommended by the IRT. > * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain > registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a > breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per > IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section > 3.5.3.17 (regarding cancellations of services related to names that > are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) > * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has > been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements > for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, > as directed by the Final Report. > * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match > language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being > "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had > been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). > * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text > (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now > included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic > processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property > Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may > continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section > 5.7.3) > * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW > SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS > SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH > HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION > AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO > TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT > FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. > * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit > to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins > providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is > registered. > * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS > SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR > FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review > period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members > regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt > process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the > time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" > request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for > greater clarity. > * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has > been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see > Section 1.1.6). > > 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 [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c... > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
You could be right Amy, and perhaps this is a matter of optics. I am not sure it is something that needs to be dealt with through the public comment period though. / In the event that policy issues arise in the course of implementation discussions, they should be referred back to the GNSO in accordance with the framework for implementation associated with GNSO policy recommendations, including the Implementation Review Team Guidelines & Principles./ I think this is more applicable given the nature of the divide which is rather specific. My observation is that the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue, so we do not see the need. Another alternative, and let me put down two tracks here. We could reach out to the ccTLD operators; I mentioned this before. Or we just survey this at the RrSG; I am impartial here who sets up the survey (provide registrars find this reasonable), my suggestion is strictly as an IRT member and not as a RrSG member. Best, Theo On 1-3-2018 20:31, Amy Bivins wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I want to follow up on the point raised about "making policy," as this has been raised before. The IRT is not a forum for making policy--we are here to implement the final policy recommendations developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process. If members of the IRT believe that we are veering into the realm of policymaking, the GNSO liaison to the IRT may raise the issue with the GNSO Council.
With respect to this issue, staff leading this effort do not view any of the IRT's work as "making policy," for a variety of reasons. The Final Report did not contain a LEA framework, the way it did for IP, but it certainly contemplated that an LEA framework might be created in the future (the Final Report included recommendations to be implemented in any future framework). In addition, no concerns were raised during the mandatory public comment period preceding the Board's adoption of the PDP recommendations and treatment of GAC advice on this topic.
There's a difference between various groups in the IRT not being able to agree on a point of implementation and making policy. This difference of opinion, in staff's view, falls in the prior category. We plan to seek community feedback on this point during the public comment period and the GNSO Council could be invited to weigh in during that period, as well.
Best, Amy
-----Original Message----- From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review
Agree with Theo 100%, we have been wading around in the policy making pool far too much for an IRT.
Additionally, for me, defining "action" does not really address the issue. The issue is that having a contractual obligation of 24 hours is too strict. I have put forward numerous suggestions as starting points for discussing a potential compromise to no end.
Sara
sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
On 3/1/18, 8:52 AM, "Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl on behalf of Amy Bivins" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org on behalf of amy.bivins@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Theo, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far.
It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list.
However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that?
And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests?
Best, Amy
-----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review
Thanks Amy,
Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here.
Theo
Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline > versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final > report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). > The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation > program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of > the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. > > Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared > to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL > FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER > THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT > TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE > MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. > > Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this > PPAA draft: > > * Non-substantive copy edits throughout > * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) > deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared > to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at > Section 3.15. > * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) > ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 > MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these > are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the > publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be > updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final > IRT feedback. > * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation > processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to > eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now > be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as > recommended by the IRT. > * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain > registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a > breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per > IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section > 3.5.3.17 (regarding cancellations of services related to names that > are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) > * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has > been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements > for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, > as directed by the Final Report. > * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match > language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being > "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had > been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). > * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text > (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now > included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic > processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property > Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may > continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section > 5.7.3) > * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW > SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS > SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH > HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION > AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO > TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT > FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. > * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit > to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins > providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is > registered. > * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS > SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR > FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review > period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members > regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt > process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the > time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" > request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for > greater clarity. > * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has > been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see > Section 1.1.6). > > 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 [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c... > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Amy that this seems much more like an implementation issue than a policy question. Perhaps it would be fruitful to agree on two options that would be presented for public comment (though of course commenters could also suggest additional alternatives). I know several formulations have been put forward by Sara et al so perhaps they could select one of these for inclusion. I am a bit puzzled by the observation that “ the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue.” At one level that is of course true because we do not have an accreditation program in place yet, so registrars are free to operate p/p services without fulfilling any particular requirement regarding LE requests. At another level, all registrars (or at least all those subject to the 2013 RAA section 3.18.2) must have a 24/7 contact in place to receive LE reports, and “well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report,” so I imagine there might have been some experience relevant to this issue. In any case registrars (and/or the RrSG) will, I am sure, express their preference in the public comment forum. [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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:56 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Amy Bivins Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review You could be right Amy, and perhaps this is a matter of optics. I am not sure it is something that needs to be dealt with through the public comment period though. In the event that policy issues arise in the course of implementation discussions, they should be referred back to the GNSO in accordance with the framework for implementation associated with GNSO policy recommendations, including the Implementation Review Team Guidelines & Principles. I think this is more applicable given the nature of the divide which is rather specific. My observation is that the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue, so we do not see the need. Another alternative, and let me put down two tracks here. We could reach out to the ccTLD operators; I mentioned this before. Or we just survey this at the RrSG; I am impartial here who sets up the survey (provide registrars find this reasonable), my suggestion is strictly as an IRT member and not as a RrSG member. Best, Theo On 1-3-2018 20:31, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, I want to follow up on the point raised about "making policy," as this has been raised before. The IRT is not a forum for making policy--we are here to implement the final policy recommendations developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process. If members of the IRT believe that we are veering into the realm of policymaking, the GNSO liaison to the IRT may raise the issue with the GNSO Council. With respect to this issue, staff leading this effort do not view any of the IRT's work as "making policy," for a variety of reasons. The Final Report did not contain a LEA framework, the way it did for IP, but it certainly contemplated that an LEA framework might be created in the future (the Final Report included recommendations to be implemented in any future framework). In addition, no concerns were raised during the mandatory public comment period preceding the Board's adoption of the PDP recommendations and treatment of GAC advice on this topic. There's a difference between various groups in the IRT not being able to agree on a point of implementation and making policy. This difference of opinion, in staff's view, falls in the prior category. We plan to seek community feedback on this point during the public comment period and the GNSO Council could be invited to weigh in during that period, as well. Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>; gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl><mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Agree with Theo 100%, we have been wading around in the policy making pool far too much for an IRT. Additionally, for me, defining "action" does not really address the issue. The issue is that having a contractual obligation of 24 hours is too strict. I have put forward numerous suggestions as starting points for discussing a potential compromise to no end. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. On 3/1/18, 8:52 AM, "Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl on behalf of Amy Bivins" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org on behalf of amy.bivins@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofamy.bivins@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Theo, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far. It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list. However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that? And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests? Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org><mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Thanks Amy, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline > versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final > report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). > The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation > program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of > the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. > > Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared > to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL > FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER > THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT > TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE > MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. > > Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this > PPAA draft: > > * Non-substantive copy edits throughout > * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) > deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared > to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at > Section 3.15. > * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) > ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 > MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these > are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the > publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be > updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final > IRT feedback. > * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation > processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to > eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now > be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as > recommended by the IRT. > * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain > registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a > breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per > IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section > 3.5.3.17<http://3.5.3.17> (regarding cancellations of services related to names that > are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) > * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has > been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements > for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, > as directed by the Final Report. > * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match > language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being > "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had > been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). > * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text > (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now > included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic > processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property > Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may > continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section > 5.7.3) > * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW > SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS > SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH > HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION > AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO > TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT > FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. > * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit > to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins > providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is > registered. > * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS > SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR > FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review > period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members > regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt > process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the > time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" > request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for > greater clarity. > * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has > been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see > Section 1.1.6). > > 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> [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-TplkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=2cw1KgZUQNMFa5qgPneFcPczDmWViE6dhzXjK1NUTS8&s=OJLoHp_FTigU3hgfi63tG5vLKuEikLwUubH9ALYl54k&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-TplkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=2cw1KgZUQNMFa5qgPneFcPczDmWViE6dhzXjK1NUTS8&s=OJLoHp_FTigU3hgfi63tG5vLKuEikLwUubH9ALYl54k&e=> > _______________________________________________ > 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<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<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<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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl>
Sara, Theo, and other registrars in the group—what do you think about Steve’s suggestion? I know you’ve made (Sara, specifically) a few suggestions for language. These didn’t appear to have broad support on the list, but if the registrars in the group would like to work together to propose one of those formulations for inclusion in the call for comments we can certainly do that. For reference, the IRT guidelines, which note the relevant processes for raising issues at the Council level, are available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug1... From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:09 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review I agree with Amy that this seems much more like an implementation issue than a policy question. Perhaps it would be fruitful to agree on two options that would be presented for public comment (though of course commenters could also suggest additional alternatives). I know several formulations have been put forward by Sara et al so perhaps they could select one of these for inclusion. I am a bit puzzled by the observation that “ the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue.” At one level that is of course true because we do not have an accreditation program in place yet, so registrars are free to operate p/p services without fulfilling any particular requirement regarding LE requests. At another level, all registrars (or at least all those subject to the 2013 RAA section 3.18.2) must have a 24/7 contact in place to receive LE reports, and “well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report,” so I imagine there might have been some experience relevant to this issue. In any case registrars (and/or the RrSG) will, I am sure, express their preference in the public comment forum. [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[msk.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.msk.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=...> 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:56 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>; Amy Bivins Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review You could be right Amy, and perhaps this is a matter of optics. I am not sure it is something that needs to be dealt with through the public comment period though. In the event that policy issues arise in the course of implementation discussions, they should be referred back to the GNSO in accordance with the framework for implementation associated with GNSO policy recommendations, including the Implementation Review Team Guidelines & Principles. I think this is more applicable given the nature of the divide which is rather specific. My observation is that the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue, so we do not see the need. Another alternative, and let me put down two tracks here. We could reach out to the ccTLD operators; I mentioned this before. Or we just survey this at the RrSG; I am impartial here who sets up the survey (provide registrars find this reasonable), my suggestion is strictly as an IRT member and not as a RrSG member. Best, Theo On 1-3-2018 20:31, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, I want to follow up on the point raised about "making policy," as this has been raised before. The IRT is not a forum for making policy--we are here to implement the final policy recommendations developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process. If members of the IRT believe that we are veering into the realm of policymaking, the GNSO liaison to the IRT may raise the issue with the GNSO Council. With respect to this issue, staff leading this effort do not view any of the IRT's work as "making policy," for a variety of reasons. The Final Report did not contain a LEA framework, the way it did for IP, but it certainly contemplated that an LEA framework might be created in the future (the Final Report included recommendations to be implemented in any future framework). In addition, no concerns were raised during the mandatory public comment period preceding the Board's adoption of the PDP recommendations and treatment of GAC advice on this topic. There's a difference between various groups in the IRT not being able to agree on a point of implementation and making policy. This difference of opinion, in staff's view, falls in the prior category. We plan to seek community feedback on this point during the public comment period and the GNSO Council could be invited to weigh in during that period, as well. Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>; gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl><mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Agree with Theo 100%, we have been wading around in the policy making pool far too much for an IRT. Additionally, for me, defining "action" does not really address the issue. The issue is that having a contractual obligation of 24 hours is too strict. I have put forward numerous suggestions as starting points for discussing a potential compromise to no end. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. On 3/1/18, 8:52 AM, "Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl on behalf of Amy Bivins" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org on behalf of amy.bivins@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofamy.bivins@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Theo, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far. It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list. However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that? And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests? Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org><mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Thanks Amy, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline > versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final > report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). > The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation > program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of > the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. > > Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared > to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL > FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER > THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT > TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE > MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. > > Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this > PPAA draft: > > * Non-substantive copy edits throughout > * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) > deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared > to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at > Section 3.15. > * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) > ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 > MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these > are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the > publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be > updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final > IRT feedback. > * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation > processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to > eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now > be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as > recommended by the IRT. > * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain > registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a > breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per > IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section > 3.5.3.17[3.5.3.17]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3.5.3.17&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1...> (regarding cancellations of services related to names that > are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) > * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has > been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements > for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, > as directed by the Final Report. > * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match > language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being > "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had > been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). > * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text > (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now > included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic > processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property > Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may > continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section > 5.7.3) > * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW > SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS > SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH > HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION > AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO > TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT > FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. > * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit > to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins > providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is > registered. > * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS > SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR > FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review > period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members > regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt > process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the > time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" > request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for > greater clarity. > * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has > been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see > Section 1.1.6). > > 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=DwMGaQ&c...> [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&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 _______________________________________________ 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
All, I’m writing in my capacity as the GNSO Council liaison to this IRT. Given the below exchange about whether or not the IRT is attempting to make new policy, an issue that has been raised a number of times before, it’s clear that at least some members are still not in agreement on this issue. Per the Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles and Guidelines, it’s probably time to assess the level of consensus within the IRT as to whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. @Staff, will you proceed with a more formal call for consensus if that needs to occur as well as tracking the consensus feedback? I understand the GNSO Working Group Guidelines require consensus be obtained using the mailing list to ensure all members have the opportunity to participate. Best, Darcy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 3:49 PM To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Sara, Theo, and other registrars in the group—what do you think about Steve’s suggestion? I know you’ve made (Sara, specifically) a few suggestions for language. These didn’t appear to have broad support on the list, but if the registrars in the group would like to work together to propose one of those formulations for inclusion in the call for comments we can certainly do that. For reference, the IRT guidelines, which note the relevant processes for raising issues at the Council level, are available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug1... From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:09 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review I agree with Amy that this seems much more like an implementation issue than a policy question. Perhaps it would be fruitful to agree on two options that would be presented for public comment (though of course commenters could also suggest additional alternatives). I know several formulations have been put forward by Sara et al so perhaps they could select one of these for inclusion. I am a bit puzzled by the observation that “ the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue.” At one level that is of course true because we do not have an accreditation program in place yet, so registrars are free to operate p/p services without fulfilling any particular requirement regarding LE requests. At another level, all registrars (or at least all those subject to the 2013 RAA section 3.18.2) must have a 24/7 contact in place to receive LE reports, and “well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report,” so I imagine there might have been some experience relevant to this issue. In any case registrars (and/or the RrSG) will, I am sure, express their preference in the public comment forum. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com[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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:56 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Amy Bivins Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review You could be right Amy, and perhaps this is a matter of optics. I am not sure it is something that needs to be dealt with through the public comment period though. In the event that policy issues arise in the course of implementation discussions, they should be referred back to the GNSO in accordance with the framework for implementation associated with GNSO policy recommendations, including the Implementation Review Team Guidelines & Principles. I think this is more applicable given the nature of the divide which is rather specific. My observation is that the registrars on the IRT have so far not experienced the issue, so we do not see the need. Another alternative, and let me put down two tracks here. We could reach out to the ccTLD operators; I mentioned this before. Or we just survey this at the RrSG; I am impartial here who sets up the survey (provide registrars find this reasonable), my suggestion is strictly as an IRT member and not as a RrSG member. Best, Theo On 1-3-2018 20:31, Amy Bivins wrote: Dear Colleagues, I want to follow up on the point raised about "making policy," as this has been raised before. The IRT is not a forum for making policy--we are here to implement the final policy recommendations developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process. If members of the IRT believe that we are veering into the realm of policymaking, the GNSO liaison to the IRT may raise the issue with the GNSO Council. With respect to this issue, staff leading this effort do not view any of the IRT's work as "making policy," for a variety of reasons. The Final Report did not contain a LEA framework, the way it did for IP, but it certainly contemplated that an LEA framework might be created in the future (the Final Report included recommendations to be implemented in any future framework). In addition, no concerns were raised during the mandatory public comment period preceding the Board's adoption of the PDP recommendations and treatment of GAC advice on this topic. There's a difference between various groups in the IRT not being able to agree on a point of implementation and making policy. This difference of opinion, in staff's view, falls in the prior category. We plan to seek community feedback on this point during the public comment period and the GNSO Council could be invited to weigh in during that period, as well. Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Agree with Theo 100%, we have been wading around in the policy making pool far too much for an IRT. Additionally, for me, defining "action" does not really address the issue. The issue is that having a contractual obligation of 24 hours is too strict. I have put forward numerous suggestions as starting points for discussing a potential compromise to no end. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. On 3/1/18, 8:52 AM, "Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl on behalf of Amy Bivins" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org on behalf of amy.bivins@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Theo, and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far. It does sound as though the IRT may not be able to reach agreement on the "24 hour" issue. If anyone else has comments about that point specifically, please share it with the list. However, we seem to potentially have more support on the proposal to further define "action" or to use a different word. Does anyone else want to share comments about that? And, also, do you have any thoughts about whether we should make any adjustments to the language about the receipt process and how that applies to "high priority" requests? Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:15 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated PPAA draft and related materials attached for IRT review Thanks Amy, Regarding the LEA framework and the specific ongoing discussion, it seems we are not able to come to an agreement here. I understand the firm position of the PSWG here, but I am still not convinced here based on experience, as such I think we are creating policy here, which would be against the recommendations, though can be justified in my personal expierence if there is material evidence policy needs to be created. But that does not appear to be the case here. Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-02-28 08:16 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached is the updated PPAA draft, in redline and non-redline > versions. I've also included a version with references to the Final > report and notes to the IRT about where edits were made (or not made). > The attached slide deck includes an overview of the accreditation > program materials, remaining open issues, and identifies how each of > the Final Recommendations are proposed to be implemented. > > Please begin reviewing the updates to the PPAA draft and come prepared > to discuss at our meeting on Tuesday. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FINAL > FEEDBACK ON THE LEA FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING SPECIFICATION NO LATER > THAN THIS FRIDAY, 2 MARCH. WE PLAN TO UPDATE THIS DRAFT WITH RESPECT > TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THOSE ISSUES NEXT WEEK AS WE PREPARE THESE > MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. > > Brief, high-level summary of the changes/questions for the IRT in this > PPAA draft: > > * Non-substantive copy edits throughout > * Labeling specification (and all references to this specification) > deleted based on IRT feedback that the requirements therein appeared > to be beyond scope. Labeling requirement included in PPAA body at > Section 3.15. > * REPORTING SPECIFICATION (AND REFERENCES TO THIS SPECIFICATION) > ADDED. SPECIFICATION REMAINS UNDER IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK 2 > MARCH). Links to PP IETF documents are not yet functional, as these > are not yet published. These are expected to be published prior to the > publication of the draft PPAA for public comment and links will be > updated if needed when this specification is finalized based on final > IRT feedback. > * Definition of "Working Group" (applicable to amendment, negotiation > processes--See, e.g., Section 7.4.1) updated throughout PPAA to > eliminate references to any future PPSG. In its place, the WG will now > be convened by the GNSO Council (See PPAA Section 1.43), as > recommended by the IRT. > * All references to a Provider terminating a customer's domain > registration or requesting that a registrar do so in response to a > breach of the terms of service or other wrongs have been deleted, per > IRT input. (See, e.g. Section 3.5.3.1; See, specifically, Section > 3.5.3.17[3.5.3.17] (regarding cancellations of services related to names that > are subject to UDRP/URS proceedings.) > * Explicit requirement that Provider publish its terms of service has > been added (See Section 3.8.1). Prior draft referenced requirements > for ToS contents but didn't explicitly require that ToS be published, > as directed by the Final Report. > * Abuse desk requirement in PPAA Section 3.12.1 edited to match > language in Final Report (language about the abuse contact being > "capable and authorized to investigate…" from the Final Report had > been inadvertently deleted at some point in a prior draft). > * Deletion of LEA-related abuse contact requirements in PPAA text > (formerly section 3.12.2). All LEA-specific requirements are now > included in the LEA Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Reference to use of "high-volume, automated electronic > processes…" in PPAA section 3.14 was moved to Intellectual Property > Disclosure Framework Specification. > * Clarification added that a provider on suspended status may > continue to provide services for existing registrations (Section > 5.7.3) > * SEVERAL CLEAN-UP EDITS IN SPECIFICATION 1, DATA ESCROW > SPECIFICATION. ICANN IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE INCLUSION OF THIS > SPECIFICATION IN THE PPAA ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO THE RAA FORMAT WHICH > HAS THE ESCROW SPECIFICATION SEPARATE FROM THE ACCREDITATION > AGREEMENT. AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/RFCS MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO > TIME, THERE ARE BENEFITS TO HAVING THIS OUTSIDE THE PPAA ITSELF. IRT > FEEDBACK IS REQUESTED ON THIS TOPIC. > * Specification 2: Customer Data Accuracy Program Specification. Edit > to Section 1, to clarify that obligation applies when Provider begins > providing the Services for a name, as opposed to when the name is > registered. > * SPECIFICATION 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY SPECIFICATION. THIS > SPECIFICATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER FINAL IRT REVIEW (DEADLINE FOR > FEEDBACK 2 MARCH). Substantive edits may be made after this review > period. There is currently some disagreement among IRT members > regarding high priority requests, specifically: (a) how the receipt > process should or should not apply to high priority requests, (b) the > time that should be allowed for a provider to action a "high priority" > request. In addition, the IRT is considering defining "action" for > greater clarity. > * Data retention specification: The data required to be retained has > been reduced by the deletion of the labeling specification (see > Section 1.1.6). > > 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[icann.org] [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwIDaQ&c... > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
participants (6)
-
Amy Bivins -
Darcy Southwell -
gtheo -
Metalitz, Steven -
Sara Bockey -
theo geurts