December 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Compilation of P/P provider responses
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows: 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful? 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you¹d like to add to a response you¹d provided previously, please send it along and I¹ll make sure it gets added to this document. Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

9 11

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 23 December 2014 at 1500 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 23 December 2014 at 15:00 UTC. at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-2014122<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20141216-en.mp3>3-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick – Individual Justin Macy - BC Val Sherman – IPC Theo Geurts - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG James Bladel – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Phil Corwin – BC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Richard Leaning – no SOI Darcy Southwell – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Todd Williams – IPC David Heasley - IPC Paul McGrady – IPC David Hughes - IPC Carlton Samuels – ALAC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Volker Greimann – RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG John Berryhill – RrSG – not listed as PPSAI WG member Apologies : Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton – RrSG Vicky Scheckler – IPC Holly Raiche – ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC Jim Bikoff - IPC Marika Konings ICANN staff: Mary Wong Daniela Andela Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 23 December 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 23 December 2014 Val Sherman:Hello All! Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Good morning! Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, I apologize but today a may have to leave before the end oof the call. Mary Wong:No worries, Osvaldo! Don Blumenthal:Usual audio problems on this PC. Val Sherman:ditto Stephanie Perrin:Wicked echo, Don Stephanie Perrin:Better! thanks Osvaldo Novoa:Is OK now Nathalie Peregrine:John Berryhill has joined the call Chris Pelling:afternoon all, sorry I am late Stephanie Perrin:Sounds like a great idea, customers would then also understand what could happen Mary Wong:Thanks, James! Paul McGrady:Sorry to be late. Nathalie Peregrine:Paul McGrady has joined the room Frank Michlick:Agree, transferring a P&P registration elsewhere is not as trivial as it may sound and may involve a change of registrar. Frank Michlick:If P&P were a registry function then it would be a different story, but it isn't and probably shouldn't be. Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the room Carlton Samuels:Morning all Carlton Samuels:We cannot assume that a P/P service provider is a registry Carlton Samuels:..let's deconstruct; the one must not be tied to the other. There must be specific policy guidelines for deaccreditation for whatever reason Carlton Samuels:So we explicity state what deaccreditation means in this context, maybe with a listing of actions, without restrictions Kathy:sorry, participating from a tough spot. Kathy:But are both privacy and choice preserved for Registrants Kathy:in the new language? Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: Yes, I think it should be Richard Leaning:i agree also with Kathy Kathy:Great- that's key! Mary Wong:@James, no we don't have that explicitly stated at the moemnt; something to include in the final draft Initial Report Osvaldo Novoa:Sorry all, I have to leave now. Best wishes to all in the up coming festivities Kathy:There are a lot of privacy/data protection statute issues involved in the escrow of p/p data Carlton Samuels:@James: Even with escrow, the registrant must NOT be disadvantaged and should retin the right to choose their provider Kathy:I think it is something we should discuss - perhaps with the larger group Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1. The data protection principles under which the data was originally curated remains with the data. So it cannot go to a regime that is less than what originally obtains Carlton Samuels:When I use the term 'regime' I mean both law and practicve Carlton Samuels:hardly: U sound far away Steph Chris Pelling:I can hear aok Chris Pelling:gone all quiet now Chris Pelling:WOW Chris Pelling:hehe Frank Michlick:the whole thing Frank Michlick:please Kathy:@Stephanie, is this what you are saying: that the commitment of protection by a secondary P/P Provider (who receives the transferred escrowed data) should be similar to the protections of the original P/P Providers? Carlton Samuels:@ Kathy: The registrant should have a say; must affirm positively Frank Michlick:Thank you Stephanie Perrin:No problem! Stephanie Perrin:Absolutely agree with James.... Carlton Samuels:The P/P provision is assumed to be a set of conditions not necessarily related to DP law. The terms are paramount here for the registrant who signed up James Bladel:Volker: I'm curious do you have issues with Iron Mountain/Data Escrow? Does IM store your data somewhere in Europe? Theo Geurts:i expect issues with Iron Mountain later on when EU privacy laws get tougher Carlton Samuels:What we must ensure is that they are not disadvantaged in failure in any way shape or form. We can frame what should ahppen in that event using a DP-type regime since they exist and I don't like to recreate wheels. Carlton Samuels:But the baseline is a set of contracted conditions that must be preserved Theo Geurts:but iron mountain is not the only ICANN appointed Escrow service, so i expect we will switch in the future Don Blumenthal:Or a Russian entity for Rusian customers because of their new law? Stephanie Perrin:This is what binding corporate rules gets around....and those rules could be part of the accreditation requirements which you suggested. Volker Greimann:James: That is already the case. Your european customer data _is_ subject to European DP laws Carlton Samuels:@Steph: +1 Volker Greimann:under European law, that is Frank Michlick: Happy Holidays! Kathy:Happy Holidays, All! Paul McGrady:Thanks everyone! Happy Holidays! Carlton Samuels:Thank you Don for piloting Frank Michlick:See you in the new year. Philip Corwin:Merry everthing! Carlton Samuels:Every Good Wish ALL Stephanie Perrin:Happy holidays everyone! James Bladel:Thanks, Don and the PPSAI Die Hards! See you in 2015! Kathy:Tx Don! Darcy Southwell:Happy holidays! Theo Geurts:happy holidays everyone

1 0

Agenda for WG call on 23 December 2014
by Mary Wong Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Dear WG members, As you¹ll have already seen from the call notification that was sent out by the Secretariat, there were sufficient affirmative responses from WG members such that the chairs have agreed that doing a call tomorrow, 23 December, before breaking for the year-end holiday may be helpful. Following from the discussions on the call last week and noting that a number of members will not be able to join this call, we propose the following agenda and hope that those who are unable to participate will be able to review the recording and transcript before our next WG meeting: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Conclude discussions on Category G (latest draft attached) 3. Next steps (WG review of draft Initial Report in January, with a view to publication for public comment by 19 January) On Category G, we anticipate that any agreed changes will be reflected in the draft Initial Report, which currently includes the draft text of the potential recommendations and other notes for Category G as they stand presently. As a further note, you may find it helpful to recall that these essentially are what the WG has been reviewing since 11 November and as such there have been no substantive additions to the list of potential recommendations since then. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

2 1

Draft Initial Report for your review
by Mary Wong Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

Dear WG members, Please find attached, per the deadlines in our most recent Work Plan, a draft Initial Report for your review. We understand that the WG will likely be meeting next Tuesday, 23 December, to continue to discuss Category G and other issues if time permits. We understand also that issues relating to Category F remain under discussion, and that at the last WG meeting, it was agreed that outstanding questions on Category E will be posed to the community during the public comment period. As such, and given that the WG will have two scheduled meetings in January 2015 prior to the posting deadline of 19 January for ICANN52 to discuss the draft report, please bear in mind that this does not represent the final version of what will be published for public comment, as that will depend on any further progress, agreement or changes by the WG between now and 19 January. In relation to the WG¹s latest discussions on Category E and G, please note that we have added the following description of a ³persistent delivery failure² to the preliminary conclusions for Category E: · "The WG considers that a ³persistent delivery failure² will have occurred when an electronic communications system abandons or otherwise stops attempting to deliver an electronic communication to a customer after [a certain number of] repeated or duplicate delivery attempts within [a reasonable period of time]. The WG emphasizes that such persistent delivery failure, in and of itself, is not sufficient to trigger further provider obligation or action under this Category E unless the provider also becomes aware of the persistent delivery failure." We have also continued to insert and maintain square brackets around language for which the WG has not yet reached agreement. We look forward to continued discussions next week and to the WG¹s review of this draft Initial Report come January. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Please respond - WG meeting next Tuesday 23 December
by Mary Wong Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

Dear WG members, Following up on the discussion of next steps from the call just a while ago, please indicate whether or not you plan to attend the next WG call next Tuesday 23 December: http://doodle.com/rgky8vkzbv2f95rt. Your response will help the chairs determine whether expected participation turnout will be such that the call should go ahead as scheduled, and will be much appreciated. Thank you! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

5 4

@EXT Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please respond - WG meeting next Tuesday 23 December
by Leaning, Richard Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear Mary, Yes i will be joining the call Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning(a)europol.europa.eu -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 03:53 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please respond - WG meeting next Tuesday 23 December Dear WG members, Following up on the discussion of next steps from the call just a while ago, please indicate whether or not you plan to attend the next WG call next Tuesday 23 December: http://doodle.com/rgky8vkzbv2f95rt. Your response will help the chairs determine whether expected participation turnout will be such that the call should go ahead as scheduled, and will be much appreciated. Thank you! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************

4 3

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 16 December 2014 at 1500 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 16 December 2014 at 15:00 UTC. at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20141216-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton – RrSG Frank Michlick – Individual Justin Macy - BC Susan Kawaguchi – BC Kristina Rosette – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Theo Geurts - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG James Bladel – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Alex Deacon – IPC Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Phil Corwin – BC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Vicky Scheckler – IPC Holly Raiche – ALAC Christian Dawson-ISPCP Carlton Samuels – ALAC Michele Neylon – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Phil Marano - IPC Todd Williams – IPC David Cake – NCSG David Heasley - IPC Darcy Southwell – RrSG David Hughes - IPC Apologies : Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG Richard Leaning – no SOI Paul McGrady – IPC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC Marika Konings ICANN staff: Mary Wong Daniela Andela Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 16 December 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 16 December 2014 Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Kathy:Hi All -- on a completely different note, I wanted to share that my documentary (on the ENIAC Programmers) "played the White House" last Wednesday -- as part of the First Computer Science Film Festival :-) Kathy:No Presidential participation -- but lots of students! Theo Geurts:cool Bladel::( steve metalitz:Note that regrets also received from Paul McGrady Nathalie Peregrine:noted, thanks Kathy:We're not meeting next week, are we? Nathalie Peregrine:Vicky Scheckler joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:you all have scrolling rights now Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake Nathalie Peregrine:has joined the cal Stephanie Perrin:& Kathy, Wow, congratulations! Nathalie Peregrine:Graeme, i have now promoted you to presented, you can scroll now and all should see Kristina Rosette:Apologies for being late. Needed a few minutes to decompress after my 2 hour commute! Nathalie Peregrine:David Hughes is on the audio bridge val sherman:Kathy - -that's great. Congrats! Nathalie Peregrine:all have scrolling rights now Kathy:@Kristina - 2 hours? It is bumper to bumper out there (DC)? Kathy:Is it? Kathy:@Mary - I like that clarification Kristina Rosette:@Kathy. Yes. Water main break on 12th Street, flooded Metro Center, shut down orange-blue-silver lines (so everyone from VA drove) and then 12th closed between E &F. Michele Neylon:oh lovely Kathy:@Kristina - yikes! Nathalie Peregrine:Apologies from Kiran Malancharuvil Nathalie Peregrine:Don Blumenthal has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the call Carlton Samuels:Morning all Nathalie Peregrine:Please all MUTE phones and mics as we are getting an echo. Nathalie Peregrine:If you are listening via the audio bridge, please mute your computer speakers. Kristina Rosette:Could we flag this definition as a point on which we specifically seek community input (when the report goes out for public comment)? Kathy:Let's try this: Persistent Failure of Delivery = a technical failure of delivery over a period of time after which the system stops trying to deliver? Michele Neylon:Kristina +1 Michele Neylon:that would help steve metalitz:+1 Kristina val sherman:+1 Bladel:Sounds good. I think the key is for a provider to be aware that delivery failed or was abandoned due to excessive attempts. Michele Neylon:I like community input Don Blumenthal:I thought I was. I can hear but I guess that the mic isn't working. Nathalie Peregrine:Don, can we dial out to you? Holly Raiche:Agree with Kathy steve metalitz:James' point is already in the text -- "that the provider becomes aware of." Kathy:@Steve, agreed, but we should also include it with the def of technical failure since the def is really two parts: the technical failure + knowledge of it by P/P (I would put both in the new footnote) Bladel:"Reasonable limits on repeated duplicate requests." Don Blumenthal:My hand was up as a polite way to see if I got the mic to work. No luck. steve metalitz:+1 James on reasonable limits Bladel:There should probably be an "or" bweteen "repeated" and "duplicate" Bladel:Apologies for that. Also, I'll need to drop at 9:30CST, so thanks folks. Holly Raiche:Agree with Kathy on need to there being two parts - technical and knowledge of failure Kathy:should/must -> public comment? Todd Williams:+1 Steve Kristina Rosette:+1 to steve val sherman:+ 1 Steve Michele Neylon:+1 Kathy Darcy Southwell:+1 to Kathy steve metalitz:"should" is not a minimum standard, it's a recommendation Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:trying to find course of echo Graeme Bunton:Could you elaborate Kathy? val sherman:How would these be enforceable if these were merely recommendations? Kristina Rosette:@Val: They wouldn't be. That's the problem. Michele Neylon:suggesting that we get input during a public comment period is not deferring Michele Neylon:it's simply moving forward val sherman:How would these standards be enforceable if they were mere recommendations? Graeme Bunton:So, email or form failed, then Providers must use phone or physical mail to forward escalation? Holly Raiche:I think it should be must - recognising that the requirement is to make the effort to contact and accepting that contact may not necessarily be made val sherman:Sorry for duplicate comments -- also having issues with Adobe Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - I don't think we have agreed on what method is to be used if email contact fails - maybe that is what we seek comment on Michele Neylon:Holly - I'd prefer it were left open Graeme Bunton:Was just pondering what other methods would be at our disposal Michele Neylon:ie. if I want to ring them, send them a letter or drive to their house Michele Neylon:I should be able to choose what method works best for me Holly Raiche:@ Michael - I don't think we are trying to determine what method is used - that should be left open. The question is between saying an attempt must be made doing something differently to try to make contact Graeme Bunton:no disagreement on provider selection, Michele Holly Raiche:Provider selection isn't the issue - I see that as a given. The issue for Steve is whether or not an attempt should or must be made Susan Kawaguchi:If the current process for de-accreditatin ofregistrars works well then I think we should not reinvent the wheel steve metalitz:+1 Holly "provider selection" of the means of alternative relay is in the text already Holly Raiche:@ Michele - apologies for the misspelling - it's 0250 here Kathy:In general, I think there are points newly added in this doc that I would like some time to think about... Kristina Rosette:+1 to Michele and Susan Holly Raiche:Agree with Kathy - spend time on the next calll - next week?? val sherman:pick up? Nathalie Peregrine:trying to find the noisy line Michele Neylon:lol Graeme Bunton:Hooray! Stephanie Perrin:Sorry lost sound, hope we are returning to theseissues next week steve metalitz:+1 on "general recommendation" Nathalie Peregrine:AC audio is still running Michele Neylon:I need to drop Michele Neylon:have yet another call now Carlton Samuels:Talk to all of you anon. Bye

1 0

Agenda and documents for review for WG call of 16 December
by Mary Wong Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next call on Tuesday 16 December is: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Finalize deliberations on Category E (updated draft recommendations based on the WG call of last week - attached) 3. Finalize deliberations on Category G (draft recommendations unchanged from last week attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting Please note that in updating the draft recommendations for Category E, we have tried to address the concerns and suggestions made on the call last week. This includes new footnotes clarifying the need for flexibility on the meaning of an ³electronic communication² and distinguishing between a ³failure² of delivery and a ³non-response², as well as additional and changed language to the draft recommendations concerning escalation and further action in the event of a persistent failure of delivery of an electronic communication. Please see the attached redline for the changes and additions. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

3 2

REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Terri Agnew Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 23 October or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

1 2

Updated attendance MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 09 December 2014 at 1500 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 09 December 2014 at 15:00 UTC. at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-201412<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20141202-en.mp3>09.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton – RrSG Frank Michlick – Individual Chris Pelling – RrSG Justin Macy - BC Susan Kawaguchi – BC Kristina Rosette – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Theo Geurts - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG James Bladel – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Alex Deacon – IPC Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Paul McGrady – IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Phil Corwin – BC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Vicky Scheckler – IPC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC Holly Raiche – ALAC Christian Dawson-ISPCP Carlton Samuels – ALAC Michele Neylon – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Dick Leaning – no soi Phil Marano - IPC Apologies : Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Gery Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 09 December 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 9 December 2014 Theo Geurts:good Theo Geurts:and good afternoon all. Michele Neylon:waiting for the operator Bladel:*hold music* Nathalie Peregrine:Operator has been informed of the delay Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Bladel:There are a bunch of us waiting to join the bridge. Michele Neylon:AFK BRB Michele Neylon:Steve's volume is very low Don Blumenthal:Stioll neeed too set voice up Nathalie Peregrine:@ Michele, I hear him fine. Carlton Samuels:Morning all vicky sheckler:hi Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano, Kristina Rosette have also joined Kathy:Hi All Frank Michlick:Hi - sorry for being late. Nathalie Peregrine:Susan Kawaguchi has also joined Nathalie Peregrine:We are dialing out to Don right now Don Blumenthal:I'm on Christian Dawson:sorry for being late team Bladel:Ahh...ok. Stephanie Perrin:I think James has raised a very important point....if there is a positive obligation to respond, it should be articulated more clearly than burying it in a reveal process. Bladel:SOrry for combining those issues. Nathalie Peregrine:Volker Greimann has joined the call Bladel:In that case, the escalation would be Invalid WHOIS? Holly Raiche:Can there be a positive reuirement on the registrant to respond! Bladel:or equivalent for PP providers. Nathalie Peregrine:Kiran Malancharuvil is on the audio bridge Graeme Bunton:hand from Marika Stephanie Perrin:@Holly I dont think so, but the reason we keep muddling the two strikes me as the fact that we have not positiviely set out the obligations on all sides... Holly Raiche:@ stephanie - agreed Kathy:Am I mistaken, that a difference between bullet 1 and 2 on page 2 that the requirement of affirmative notification to the p/p providers is not required (?) Bladel:With Mary's enhancements/improvements. Kathy:Are there two bullet points intended to be be together or as rep Kathy:...as replacements for each other? Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - I think that is where we are stuck - but could be wrong Kathy:@Holly - tx! Holly Raiche:Aren't we assuming that thee may be a requirement on the p/p provider to have two ways to communicte with the customer - email - and what? Bladel:@Susan: I think so. Michele Neylon:web form => email Bladel:email, webform, SMS/text. steve metalitz:@Susan, yes. Nathalie Peregrine:Please remember to state your names for the transcript Michele Neylon:Some $random technology that doesn't currently exist Michele Neylon:fax can be either Michele Neylon:fax our main number and we get it via email as a PDF Susan Kawaguchi:I agree with you Michele that we should allow for technology that doesn't exist but do not want to have to define the process with each new communication type developed Kathy:I'm speaking to a diferent point, so please let Holly go first Bladel:Yes, that was "postal relay" But this is the escalation of failed electronic communication. Michele Neylon:Susan - there's wording in some existing policies that caters for that ie. use X, Y or Z or any future tech Kathy:As part of an escalation process when the conditions of delivery failure have been met (as defined above), the providers [should][must]... Graeme Bunton:Steve, would you mind? Holly Raiche:That's my question - IS there an alternative means of delivery that must be in place? Holly Raiche:@ James - thanks, that answers my question Kristina Rosette:+1 Susan. Bladel:+1 Susan. But that rasies another question... :) Holly Raiche:Are we assuming that there are two different email addresses for the customer? Susan Kawaguchi:pp records regarding their customer Michele Neylon:Can I respond? Graeme Bunton:Yes Paul, I was assuming same address Kristina Rosette:Understand where Paul is going here. We may need a PP equivalent to inaccurate Whois reporting. Holly Raiche:@Kristina - if here is a failure to respond - however defined - we need to distinguish between a persistent delivery failure and a non-respond Alex Deacon:Also we shouldn't assume P/P is affiliated with the registrar. Kristina Rosette:@Holly. yes, I know. Holly Raiche:@ kristina - maybe that needs to be said somewhere other than the chat vicky sheckler:sorry I need to run. Kathy:@Holly, good point. That's why I like the language in the first bullet -- timely, afirmative notification of a persistent failure of delivery... that seems to codify a technical problem . Do you read it the same way? Michele Neylon:"Escrow of P/P Customer Information. Registrar shall include P/P Customer contact information in its Registration Data Escrow deposits required by Section 3.6 of the Agreement. P/P Customer Information escrowed pursuant to this Section 2.5 of this Specification may only be accessed by ICANN in the event of the termination of the Agreement or in the event Registrar ceases business operations." Marika Konings:As a reminder from Cat B, Question 2: The WG recommends that proxy and privacy customer data be validated and verified in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in the Whois Accuracy Specification of the 2013 RAA. Moreover, in the cases where validation and verification of the P/P customer data was carried out by the registrar, re-verification by the P/P service of the same, identical, information should not be required. Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - yes, read the sme way Marika Konings:That preliminary recommendation also includes the following: Similar to ICANN’s Whois Data Reminder Policy, P/P providers should be required to inform the P/P customer annually of his/her requirement to provide accurate and up to date contact information to the P/P provider. If the P/P service has any information suggesting that the P/P customer information is incorrect (such as P/P service receiving a bounced email notification or non-delivery notification message in connection with compliance with data reminder notices or otherwise) for any P/P customer, the P/P provider must verify or re-verify, as applicable, the email address(es). If, within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving any such information, P/P service does not receive an affirmative response from the P/P customer providing the required verification, the P/P service shall verify the applicable contact information manually. Volker Greimann:there should not be any difference between a registrar affiliated p/p service and an unaffiliated provider. Paul McGrady:Thanks Michele! Volker Greimann:It will be safe to assume that the RAA regulation will be phased out once the accreditation program is in place Kathy:@Steve - the open question is who pays the cost? Volker Greimann:the requestor should be charged for an extra fee for outlandish requests, such as postal forwarding Kathy:Thereis a concern on the part of the customer that unlimited requests from a third party could lead to unlimited costs... Frank Michlick:Requestor should pay cost. It would need to be paid before the communication is passed on. Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - fair point Graeme Bunton:There are many, as discussed multiple times, many reasons why an email may not work that are not the fault of the custoemr Carlton Samuels:We want to achieve in policy a simple way to ensure that a notice requiring delivery is delivered. If we make the electronic means the default delivery modality we must pronounce on what happens when the mode tells us it has failed to deliver. Two logiclal responses are available: 1> Try again, you lazy bastard. 2) Ok. Use another necessary means. It appears we are insisting on tying oursleves with those knots we learned as Scouts; they don't amount to much if you know which end of the rope to pull! Stephanie Perrin:POint of clarification: I keep conflating non-delivery and non-response. If all the electronic communications I recieve are going into an account I never read, but they have not bounced, then if the requestor wants to escalate, it seems obvious that requestor must assume costs Kathy:When I wanted to send a certified letter, to ensure delivery, I pay for it (requestor) Frank Michlick:nominal in comparison to lawyer costs ;-) val sherman:Stephanie -- if it goes to your spam, that would fall into the non-response category, not non-delivery. Volker Greimann:route mailqueue to /dev/null/ Kristina Rosette:Why is non-delivery caused by the requestor? If it's not, what's the rationale for putting the cost on the requestor? Why doesn't the P/P just do what some registrars do w/r/t UDRP-required transfers and notify their P/P customers that they'll be charged for delivery failures? Kathy:Tx Steve! Stephanie Perrin:Exactly. I choose to not respond, I trust that when I am being summoned to Court, my PP service provider will send me a postcard letting me know. Paul McGrady:Great call everyone! Thanks so much!! Michele Neylon:ciao Kathy:Bye All Volker Greimann:Kristina: Requestor wants something done, requestor pays Carlton Samuels:Thanks all. Bye Frank Michlick:thank you - bye Volker Greimann:he who orders the musicians fays for the music

1 0