Materials, action items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your participation on last week’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to review the recording and materials on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/17+October+2017. During the call, we discussed: The attached PP Data Escrow Specification. The IRT members on the call were OK with the proposed Specification, as it is similar to what registrars use today. The attached updated PPAA (PPAA_redline_10Oct). During the call, we discussed: the definition of Working Group in section 1.43. Some members of the IRT proposed that if there is a Provider Stakeholder Group in the future, the Provider Stakeholder Group should only be permitted to appoint the Service Provider representatives of the Working Group, rather than all members of the Working Group. Other members of the IRT noted that because the contract is between ICANN and the Service Provider, the definition of Working Group should mirror the Working definition in the RA/RAA. We tried to strike a balance between these positions in the updated draft PPAA_redline_17Oct. Section 3.12.2 – some members of the IRT expressed concern that the IRT had previously agreed to remove the “monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week” language from 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 but to keep the “respond within 24 hours” language under 3.12.2. Please note the “monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week” language has been removed from the latest draft, PPAA_redline_17Oct. Section 5.2 the renewal provision – a member of the IRT asked if language should be added that Providers cannot renew under an old form of the PPAA if a new version or global amendment goes into effect. This concern seems to be addressed in Section 5.3 of the agreement, which deals with ICANN’s right to substitute an updated agreement. Additionally, if the P/P Consensus Policy were ever changed/amended, the Policy would supersede the corresponding provisions in the PPAA. Section 5.5.2.4 – Section 5.5 provides reasons under which ICANN can terminate the Service Provider’s Agreement. A member of the IRT noted that “a pattern and practice of trafficking in or use of domain names identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark of a third party in which the Customer has no rights or legitimate interest, which trademarks have been registered and are being used in bad faith” is a reason for termination of the agreement but is not something addressed in the application/background screening. Further to that feedback, the updated application (v6) adds this question as part of the background screening questions. On Tuesday, 24 Oct, we will continue discussing the PPAA. I have attached a list that details the changes to the PPAA. If you have any specific concerns prior to the call, please feel free to respond to the list. Kind regards, Caitlin -- Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 310 578 8666 Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 Email: caitlin.tubergen@icann.org
Dear Caitlin, I will take a look at the 20 October version of the PPAA but in the meantime: Could you re-look at the renewal provision (your 3d bullet below)? Section 5.3 does not give ICANN the right to substitute the new version of the agreement, it gives that right to the provider. Furthermore, 5.3 addresses the scenario in which the new agreement is swapped in during the term of the current agreement. The point I was trying to raise on the call (and I am sorry if this was not clear) is ensuring that all renewals of the agreement at the end of the term reflect the most recent version. As currently drafted, section 5.2 seems to give the provider the option of renewing under the terms of the old agreement (“under the terms and conditions of this agreement”), even if it has been superseded by a new form of agreement that is materially different. This could be fixed by adding a subsection 5.2.5 along the following lines: 5.2.5: this Agreement has been superseded by a revised form accreditation agreement for the provision of the Services (“Updated PPAA”) that is materially different from this Agreement, in which case the right of renewal provided by this section shall be under the terms and conditions of the Updated PPAA. There are other ways this could be drafted but I hope this communicates the concern more clearly. As I mentioned on the call, I also had a few quite minor suggestions regarding the text you circulated October 10: Subsection 3.5.3.15: strike “should” and insert “shall,” for consistency with parallel provisions throughout this section 3.5. Section 3.7, third line from the bottom: “employee” should be “employ.” Section 3.17.1: I suggest adding the words “as applicable” or “to the extent applicable” at the end of the section. Not every Disclosure or Publication request that Provider receives will fall under the IP or LEA disclosure frameworks. Section 5.7.3: the notice that the suspended Provider must send to customers should specify “that it is unable to offer or provide the Services for any new registrations” (adding the last 4 words). A suspended Provider can (and indeed must) provide the Services to its current customers. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 9:22 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your participation on last week’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to review the recording and materials on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/17+October+2017. During the call, we discussed: 1. The attached PP Data Escrow Specification. The IRT members on the call were OK with the proposed Specification, as it is similar to what registrars use today. 2. The attached updated PPAA (PPAA_redline_10Oct). During the call, we discussed: · the definition of Working Group in section 1.43. Some members of the IRT proposed that if there is a Provider Stakeholder Group in the future, the Provider Stakeholder Group should only be permitted to appoint the Service Provider representatives of the Working Group, rather than all members of the Working Group. Other members of the IRT noted that because the contract is between ICANN and the Service Provider, the definition of Working Group should mirror the Working definition in the RA/RAA. We tried to strike a balance between these positions in the updated draft PPAA_redline_17Oct. · Section 3.12.2 – some members of the IRT expressed concern that the IRT had previously agreed to remove the “monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week” language from 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 but to keep the “respond within 24 hours” language under 3.12.2. Please note the “monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week” language has been removed from the latest draft, PPAA_redline_17Oct. · Section 5.2 the renewal provision – a member of the IRT asked if language should be added that Providers cannot renew under an old form of the PPAA if a new version or global amendment goes into effect. This concern seems to be addressed in Section 5.3 of the agreement, which deals with ICANN’s right to substitute an updated agreement. Additionally, if the P/P Consensus Policy were ever changed/amended, the Policy would supersede the corresponding provisions in the PPAA. · Section 5.5.2.4 – Section 5.5 provides reasons under which ICANN can terminate the Service Provider’s Agreement. A member of the IRT noted that “a pattern and practice of trafficking in or use of domain names identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark of a third party in which the Customer has no rights or legitimate interest, which trademarks have been registered and are being used in bad faith” is a reason for termination of the agreement but is not something addressed in the application/background screening. Further to that feedback, the updated application (v6) adds this question as part of the background screening questions. On Tuesday, 24 Oct, we will continue discussing the PPAA. I have attached a list that details the changes to the PPAA. If you have any specific concerns prior to the call, please feel free to respond to the list. Kind regards, Caitlin -- Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 310 578 8666 Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 Email: caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>
participants (2)
-
Caitlin Tubergen -
Metalitz, Steven