Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for 12 Sept PP IRT Meeting
Amy Thanks for sharing this. I have several concerns. Firstly the fees that are being proposed. I cannot understand why or how ICANN can justify charging $4k / year for this to a provider. From our perspective this makes zero sense, as there is no value being provided by ICANN and the cost is very high – you’re essentially doubling how much I pay ICANN per year. Background screening – this seems to be complete overkill for an “affiliated” provider. In our case for example ICANN is going to be dealing with the same person you’ve always dealt with. If you insist on subjecting us to this kind of scrutiny I don’t mind, but I just see it as being a waste of resources. 6.5 – I thought there was no clear agreement on different labelling of whois privacy in whois? 8.3 – where on earth did that come from? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Friday 8 September 2017 at 14:55 To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for 12 Sept PP IRT Meeting Dear Colleagues, Our next Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, 12 September at 1400 UTC. I hope you all can make it. On this call, I will walk you through the updated Applicant Guide, and then there will be time for Q&A and your feedback on the document. The most significant changes you’ll note in this discussion draft v2 is a proposed streamlining of the application for providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar, privacy/proxy provider (not applicable in the initial application window), or a gTLD registry operator. We’ve also added a fees proposal. Please review prior to our meeting, and we look forward to discussing on Tuesday. Please share any feedback you have prior to our call on-list. Have a great weekend! 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>
I hope that ICANN will reconsider this issue. For affiliated providers, ICANN is proposing to charge another registrar-level ICANN fee for absolutely no extra work, since most of the requirements were modeled on the privacy proxy spec to the RAA. As previously discussed, affiliate provider accreditation should be linked to the registrar accreditation at no additional cost. But this does not end here, as the fees for non-affiliated providers are also way out of proportion. You are essentially pricing smaller providers out of the ability to provide the service at reasonable cost. Many providers are offering this service as part of the overall domain registration fee and are eating the costs of the service. Free whois privacy - standard in many parts of the world - would become an untenable business proposal. If this is what ICANN is really planning to do, I am afraid that we will not achieve consensus for the implementation work. Anything beyond a nominal one-time fee is unacceptable. With the accreditation program ICANN is already increasing the costs to providers by adding new costly requirements that need to be fulfilled for a service that is usually a loss-leader, not a profit center. Adding another accreditation fee justified only by the removal of the ability to do business as usual with their partnered registrar smells like mafia-style pressure to me: "If you want to be able to continue to offer your customers this service, you better pay the protection mon...err accreditation fee!", just with the difference that the mafia actually offers some form of protection, whereas ICANN offers...what? The entire concept of an application window is also ill-considered as it basically locks out current providers that may have missed the notice or the fact that this policy actually applies to them. Providers will have to have the ability to apply close to instantly and at any time. The application process is overly complicated and bureaucratic. You should only be asking two questions: a) are you a legally established company in your country of residence and b) self-certify that you are able to comply with the requirements of this policy. Everything beyond that is superfluous and overdesigned considering the nature of the service being provided. Please withdraw this proposal and come back with something more acceptable. We have set out to create better rules for an existing service/product, not to regulate it out of existence. Or better yet, provide us with your document in editable from and we'll change it for you. Best regards, Volker Am 11.09.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Amy
Thanks for sharing this.
I have several concerns.
Firstly the fees that are being proposed.
I cannot understand why or how ICANN can justify charging $4k / year for this to a provider.
From our perspective this makes zero sense, as there is no value being provided by ICANN and the cost is very high – you’re essentially doubling how much I pay ICANN per year.
Background screening – this seems to be complete overkill for an “affiliated” provider.
In our case for example ICANN is going to be dealing with the same person you’ve always dealt with.
If you insist on subjecting us to this kind of scrutiny I don’t mind, but I just see it as being a waste of resources.
6.5 – I thought there was no clear agreement on different labelling of whois privacy in whois?
8.3 – where on earth did that come from?
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Date: *Friday 8 September 2017 at 14:55 *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for 12 Sept PP IRT Meeting
Dear Colleagues,
Our next Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, 12 September at 1400 UTC. I hope you all can make it.
On this call, I will walk you through the updated Applicant Guide, and then there will be time for Q&A and your feedback on the document. The most significant changes you’ll note in this discussion draft v2 is a proposed streamlining of the application for providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar, privacy/proxy provider (not applicable in the initial application window), or a gTLD registry operator. We’ve also added a fees proposal.
Please review prior to our meeting, and we look forward to discussing on Tuesday. Please share any feedback you have prior to our call on-list.
Have a great weekend!
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>
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi all, I think the approach can be simplified. * We have a bunch of current requirements. * New requirements. Fast track the current privacy providers (this can be done in advance). If correct, compliance should know which Registrars are in good standing and have data of the current requirements in combination with Registrars due to the previous audits. No need to to pre-screen this all. New requirements, this can be dealt with the future compliance audits. This will save everyone heaps of time and thus money, plus the bulk has now been dealt with in a short time frame. I expect that non-affiliated privacy providers can be on-boarded in a similar fashion. The WG did not make recommendations on fees and lengthy application processes. The current proposal will most likely not survive the comment period; this is something, we as an IRT, have to keep in mind. Thanks, Theo Geurts On 11-9-2017 13:29, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Amy
Thanks for sharing this.
I have several concerns.
Firstly the fees that are being proposed.
I cannot understand why or how ICANN can justify charging $4k / year for this to a provider.
From our perspective this makes zero sense, as there is no value being provided by ICANN and the cost is very high – you’re essentially doubling how much I pay ICANN per year.
Background screening – this seems to be complete overkill for an “affiliated” provider.
In our case for example ICANN is going to be dealing with the same person you’ve always dealt with.
If you insist on subjecting us to this kind of scrutiny I don’t mind, but I just see it as being a waste of resources.
6.5 – I thought there was no clear agreement on different labelling of whois privacy in whois?
8.3 – where on earth did that come from?
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Date: *Friday 8 September 2017 at 14:55 *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for 12 Sept PP IRT Meeting
Dear Colleagues,
Our next Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, 12 September at 1400 UTC. I hope you all can make it.
On this call, I will walk you through the updated Applicant Guide, and then there will be time for Q&A and your feedback on the document. The most significant changes you’ll note in this discussion draft v2 is a proposed streamlining of the application for providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar, privacy/proxy provider (not applicable in the initial application window), or a gTLD registry operator. We’ve also added a fees proposal.
Please review prior to our meeting, and we look forward to discussing on Tuesday. Please share any feedback you have prior to our call on-list.
Have a great weekend!
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>
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Thanks for this draft Amy. One question: why would section 6 not apply to applicants affiliated with registrars (Track 2)? All the questions in that section remain relevant, it seems to me. (The track terminology is a bit confusing since Track 1 is the only track that does not exist during the Initial Application Window.) Steve [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 theo geurts Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:36 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Michele Neylon - Blacknight Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for 12 Sept PP IRT Meeting Hi all, I think the approach can be simplified. * We have a bunch of current requirements. * New requirements. Fast track the current privacy providers (this can be done in advance). If correct, compliance should know which Registrars are in good standing and have data of the current requirements in combination with Registrars due to the previous audits. No need to to pre-screen this all. New requirements, this can be dealt with the future compliance audits. This will save everyone heaps of time and thus money, plus the bulk has now been dealt with in a short time frame. I expect that non-affiliated privacy providers can be on-boarded in a similar fashion. The WG did not make recommendations on fees and lengthy application processes. The current proposal will most likely not survive the comment period; this is something, we as an IRT, have to keep in mind. Thanks, Theo Geurts On 11-9-2017 13:29, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Amy Thanks for sharing this. I have several concerns. Firstly the fees that are being proposed. I cannot understand why or how ICANN can justify charging $4k / year for this to a provider. From our perspective this makes zero sense, as there is no value being provided by ICANN and the cost is very high – you’re essentially doubling how much I pay ICANN per year. Background screening – this seems to be complete overkill for an “affiliated” provider. In our case for example ICANN is going to be dealing with the same person you’ve always dealt with. If you insist on subjecting us to this kind of scrutiny I don’t mind, but I just see it as being a waste of resources. 6.5 – I thought there was no clear agreement on different labelling of whois privacy in whois? 8.3 – where on earth did that come from? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/<https://www.blacknight.com/> http://blacknight.blog/<http://blacknight.blog/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://michele.blog/> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://ceo.hosting/> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <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> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org"<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Friday 8 September 2017 at 14:55 To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org"<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org><mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials for 12 Sept PP IRT Meeting Dear Colleagues, Our next Privacy/Proxy IRT meeting is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, 12 September at 1400 UTC. I hope you all can make it. On this call, I will walk you through the updated Applicant Guide, and then there will be time for Q&A and your feedback on the document. The most significant changes you’ll note in this discussion draft v2 is a proposed streamlining of the application for providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar, privacy/proxy provider (not applicable in the initial application window), or a gTLD registry operator. We’ve also added a fees proposal. Please review prior to our meeting, and we look forward to discussing on Tuesday. Please share any feedback you have prior to our call on-list. Have a great weekend! 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
participants (4)
-
Metalitz, Steven
-
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
-
theo geurts
-
Volker Greimann