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

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 Susan Prosser – RrSG Keith Kupferschmid – IPC Todd Williams – IPC Jim Bikoff – IPC David Cake – NCSG Luc Seufer – RrSG David Heasley - IPC Apologies : Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Danielle Andela Terri Agnew ** 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

@EXT RE: Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
by Leaning, Richard Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

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: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. 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: Luc SEUFER [lseufer(a)dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson(a)servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ******************* 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. *******************

10 34

Agenda and documents for review for WG call on Tuesday 9 December
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2014

Dec. 8, 2014

Dear all, Per Don¹s email (below), the proposed agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday 9 December is: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Finalize WG recommendations on Category E Relay (see attached document and Don¹s notes, below) 3. Review WG recommendations on Category G Termination (see attached document potential recommendations/questions for WG highlighted in blue) 4. Next steps 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 From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org> Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 10:15 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issues left from the last couple of weeks > Some issues that remain from D and E. I hope that we can resolve them on the > list and then during drafting rather than take call time. > > D. Transactional/nontransactional definition > Steve formulated a definition on the call two weeks ago, subject to comment > from WG members who support the p/p eligibility categories. I haven¹t seen any > response so here it is again from the transcript: > > ³[D]omains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose > should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.² > > E. > We focused on Relay last week but didn¹t get as far as we had hoped because of > audio issues. I copied language from the template and put additions based on > where I think we wound up in bold. Please take a look and send comments on the > issues as well as my language. > > A P/P service provider [should] [must] notify the requestor upon becoming > aware through a timely affirmative notification of a persistent failure that > delivery of the original form of electronic communication has failed. > Notification may be by means of a technical mechanism or other means that > relays notice of the delivery failure to the requestor and/or provides the > requestor with alternate ways to escalate the issue. > > As part of an escalation process, and provided there has been a certain > minimum number of affirmative persistent delivery failures of an electronic > communication within a certain specified time frame [TBD], the provider > [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its customer. > A provider should have the ability to select the most appropriate means of > forwarding (including to account for issues of cost) [and to charge a > reasonable fee] [and any such reasonable fee is to be borne by the customer > and not the requestor] > > > Additional questions from the first paragraph: > 1) I was asked to focus on the forward may = disclosure issue that I > already send a note about. > > 2) Should vs must in the first line. I was tempted to bold ³must² but am > noit sure that I interpreted something correctly. > > > Additional questions from the second paragraph: > The audio issues were a particular roadblock. We still need to address: > 1) Must vs should > > 2) Cost recovery > > 3) Who pays if there is cost recovery. > > > A vigorous chat session helped with respect to the audio challenges. Kathy > circulated it once but It¹s here also for convenience. > > Talk to you on Tuesday. > > Don > > Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 02 December 2014: > > Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 02 December 2014 > > Stephanie Perrin:Wow, I am the first one. Mark this on the calendar! > > Theo Geurts:we shall remember > > Theo Geurts:good afternoon all. > > Chris Pelling:afternopon all > > Chris Pelling:afternoon * > > Graeme Bunton:Good morning all > > Bladel:Good morning. > > Bladel:Who is "D"? > > Graeme Bunton:someone is a little heavy on the breathing > > D:"D" is Don B. I'll fix in a minute. > > Bladel:Ah, ok. :) > > Graeme Bunton:Sounds ok to me > > Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Thanks Terri! > > Kiran Malancharuvil:Its okay to me > > Chris Pelling:its breaking y up here in the uk > > Michele Neylon:I'm hearing stutter on both lines > > Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:James sounds choppy to me as well. > > Holly Raiche:Yes > > Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:graeme, sorry. > > Kiran Malancharuvil:You're fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge > > Bladel:James isn't speaking. :) > > Chris Pelling:I rang in and both sound like daleks > > Susan kawaguchi:dialed in and both are choppy > > Alex Deacon:sounds loud and clear on the adobe > > Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all > > Michele Neylon:I'm dialled in nad it's bad > > Michele Neylon:the lady speaking is fine > > Michele Neylon:not sure who that is > > Michele Neylon:Mary maybe? > > Chris Pelling:agree with michele > > Christian Dawson:Agree - fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge > > Michele Neylon:everyone else sounds terrible > > Mary Wong:@Michele, that's Terri with the soothing clear speaking voice. > > Christian Dawson:Michele is that a value judgment? > > Carlton Samuels:Morning all > > Michele Neylon:Mary - so Terri is a woman? > > Michele Neylon:I didn't know that > > Chris Pelling:don sounds non existant now > > Michele Neylon:and now we have silence > > Chris Pelling:yes terry > > Carlton Samuels:Yes, loud and clear > > Chris Pelling:don is crackling > > Michele Neylon:Don's line is bad > > Alex Deacon:don sounds great on the adobe > > Michele Neylon:Graeme try please > > Kiran Malancharuvil:Don needs to call back into the audio bridge > > Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing Don very clearly! > > Bladel:Graeme is also breaking up., I think. > > Holly Raiche:The rest of us are fine - Don's still fuzzy > > Mary Wong:@Graeme, that seems to be right. > > Kathy:Full House! > > Don Blumenthal:still working on connection > > Bladel:Graeme is also a bit choppy. > > Bladel::) > > Carlton Samuels:Hi Terri, Please record me present and count > > Mary Wong:@Carlton, thank you - we will. > > Michele Neylon:I'm connected via both phone and adobe > > Christian Dawson:Just switched to Adobe only it's much better today > > Terri Agnew:@ Carlton, will do > > Michele Neylon:switched to adobe > > Michele Neylon:audio is clearer > > Holly Raiche:AGree with Michele - the audio on adobe is fine - the dial in > is fuzzy > > Chris Pelling:someone now has an echo > > Terri Agnew:apologies everyone for the choppy audio on telephone. We are > working on trying to get this to clear up > > Michele Neylon:I've muted my microphone so it's not me > > vicky sheckler:apologies - i need to drop off > > Chris Pelling:I cant hear anything on adoibe :/ > > Chris Pelling:so will listen to the crackle and make best do > > Terri Agnew:adobe seems to be the best option at the moment > > Don Blumenthal:I'm back on line. > > Graeme Bunton:Great > > Mary Wong:Please note that the options (still under discussion) have been > placed in square brackets in the current text. > > Volker Greimann:apologies, previous meeting was running into overtime > > Carlton Samuels:Yes we have control > > Holly Raiche:We have control of the screen > > Kathy:We may still be in our turkey-induced coma (for those who celebrated > Thanksgiving) > > Stephanie Perrin:Graeme while your technique is excellent, it might be rash > to move on to the next item yet...:-) > > Kathy:No, can't hear Steve > > Kathy:yes > > Chris Pelling:I can hear steve > > Carlton Samuels:Yes can hear Steve > > Paul McGrady:Sorry I'm late. > > Michele Neylon:can't hear him > > Michele Neylon:oh I can now > > Chris Pelling:this is very flakey today > > Chris Pelling:I cant hear on adobe connect Steve > > Chris Pelling:but I can on the phjone > > Chris Pelling:Just because there is no response, does not show contact issue > > steve metalitz:Is there objection to "must" in the first paragraph? > > Chris Pelling:thus even if you pay for it, its not to get a guranteed > response > > Holly Raiche:Can't hear very well > > Kathy:@Steve, yes. > > Chris Pelling:on 1 Steve it should be stating Electronic > > Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Steve > > David Cake:so Steve, you are talking about a hard bounce in email, or > equivalent? > > steve metalitz:old hand > > Kathy:@All, yes being that "should" should be kept as "should" in the first > sentence > > Bladel 2:Thanks for clarifying,. Can we get some language inserted in to > the text somewhere so it is clear? > > Chris Pelling:Kathy is clear > > Holly Raiche:Isn't the problem if the message is sent - and may be received, > but is not responded to . Aside from a hard bounce, could a registrar p/p > KNOW the email has or has not been sent > > Mary Wong:All, the WG agreed previously to NOT use language like "hard " or > "soft" bounces. > > David Cake:Did we? What language did we agree to use instead? > > Luc Seufer:twerking was porposed if memory serves > > Mary Wong:@David, that is what our notes show. Hence the chairs/staff > suggestion in Cat E when it was first circulated, about delivery failure. > > Holly Raiche:It is still hard to hear on a dial out > > Chris Pelling:But not all servers do that > > Carlton Samuels:There are standard repsonses for email! Maybe we should > eliminate the ones we don't mean > > Kathy:@Alex, I hate to ask, but couldyou summarize your comments in the > Chat? > > Chris Pelling:Not all servers are setup to rspond like that > > Kathy:You are breaking up a bit... > > Philip Corwin:The phone bridge audio is atrocious. Brittle, crackling, > fading in and out with an intermittent echo. > > Michele Neylon:if the wording is broad enough to alllow for the technical > realities of some mail servers being dumb .. > > Kiran Malancharuvil:Not technically difficult from MarkMonitor's perspective > > Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Alex's point > > Michele Neylon:Kiran - how many mail users do you host? > > Alex Deacon:@don - agree that should be the focus. > > Terri Agnew:as a reminder, please mute microphone and telephone when not > speaking. We are still troubling shooting the audio issue > > Kiran Malancharuvil:Good question, can relay back to Matt Serlin who gave me > quick answers rather than detailed analysis. > > Holly Raiche:Isn't the suggestion that if the p/p becomes aware that the > message has not been delivered, they MUST use another method of communication > > Michele Neylon:+1 to James > > Carlton Samuels:@Don: Just say that - 'when there is an affirmative notice > that an email has not reached the intended address' > > Michele Neylon:we often see issues with mail being sent to Hotmail / Gmail > etc., > > Michele Neylon:and you often don't get back any useful errors > > Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - agree with suggestion > > Susan kawaguchi:only getting every other word that james is saying > > Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Then there is no affirmative notice so we do the > next thing after time t; escalate > > Chris Pelling:dropped phone bridge > > Stephanie Perrin:Agree with James. Elegantly put. > > Bladel 2:Dang. I even dropped off the phone bridge to fix audio issue. > > Holly Raiche:@ James - could you put something in the chat - you were hard > to hear > > Bladel 2::( > > Christian Dawson:It's not you James it's the bridge in general > > steve metalitz:@James what about Carlton's proposal: 'when there is an > affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address'? > > Christian Dawson:By the way, +1 to your comments, James > > Bladel 2:The simplest summary: Reliability of detecting delivery failure > breaks down as scale increases. > > val sherman:I think we are talking about situations where the Provider is > aware of repeated delivery failures. One other point: since the Customer is > required to provide a working email by the terms of service, would it not be > in violation of the terms if there is repeated failure of delivery that the > Provider is aware of? If so, might an additional option for the Provider be to > terminate the service? > > Holly Raiche:What is the conclusion please > > Holly Raiche:@ Val - I was thinking along those lines > > Bladel 2:@Steve: that works, if we can clarify in the text. > > Stephanie Perrin:James said that costs should follow the benefitting user. > > Kathy:@Mary, I think this is this is the time for some clarification > > Kathy:It seems to be warranted at this point in the discussion... > > Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - could we clarify please > > Mary Wong:The idea for the notification is that it is triggered when the > provider "becomes aware". > > Stephanie Perrin:From a consumer protection standpoint, to avoid > harrassment, there should be some costs accruing to the party making the > allegations of abuse. > > Kathy:@Mary: that seems very loose at this point in time > > Kathy:it is not bounded by time, system response, etc > > Chris Pelling:+1 Stephanie > > steve metalitz:@Don, yes, provider should offer alternative upon request > after specified number of hard bounces. > > Kristina Rosette:+1 to Steve > > Bladel 2:It could be offered as a premium service. > > Susan kawaguchi:If the allegations of abuse are found to be accurate would > you advocate the registrant then be charged for the communication > > Holly Raiche:@ Steve - isn't he problem that there may not be 'hard' > bounces? > > Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above > > Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above\ > > steve metalitz:@Don I was responding to the question you posed..... > > Mary Wong:Just for clarity - are we going back to the "hard bounce" > language? > > Luc Seufer:do we have a definition for it? > > Stephanie Perrin:If I put someone who is bugging me into my spam filters, do > you define that as a hard bounce? Innocent (read naive) question. > > Carlton Samuels:@Don: The rule should compel a declared form of > communication for the provider. It is the responsibility of the communicators > to keep that communication line open and available. We should just say if the > response is not fortcoming within a certain time then next step is the > defined escalation for communication to be effected. That then becomes the > cost of the beneficial user, this time the requestor. > > Michele Neylon:Stephanie - your spam filter probably wouldn't bounce > > Chris Pelling:if the bridge worked we might > > Susan kawaguchi:can barely hear anything on audio > > Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - agree > > Mary Wong:@Luc, that was one of the issues when the language was first > discussed, including at the WG F2F in LA. > > Darcy Southwell:The audio is very hard to follow > > Luc Seufer:Or the preferred way of communication of lawyers: sending 20 meg > attachements, does this constitute hard bounce? > > Bladel 2:I'm starting to think we abandon this call. :( > > Susan kawaguchi:should we just go to email and forget the call > > Holly Raiche:Actually in most cases > > Kathy:@Susan: impossible tracking problem for registrars. how long would it > take until the abuse is proven - and then if it is appealed? > > Chris Pelling:also as Luc pointed out > > Chris Pelling:A lot of mail servers have message limits > > Susan kawaguchi:@Kathy so why punish the requestor only when most requests > are very targeted to domain names with bad behavior > > Stephanie Perrin:@Michele, ok so then the message is received but tucked > into my spam filters. What does the upset sender do then and is there any > reason why the service provider should pick up the cost of sending by > registered mail. > > Susan kawaguchi:dropping off call will follow in chat as I cannot understand > anything on audio > > Michele Neylon:Stephanie - if it doesn't bounce then I don't know about it > .. > > Luc Seufer:@Mary thanks so we don't > > Terri Agnew:Apologies everyone, we are working with Tech Support but not > having much luck to clear up audio > > Stephanie Perrin:@Michele but you will hear from the sender again....at > which point you tell them the message was received. Go away. Correct? > > Holly Raiche:@ Dave - I think the issue won't go away until it is clear what > amounts to a p/p provider becoming aware > > Kathy:@Susan, we were talking earlier (original discussion) about charging a > small/reasonable charge to the requestor who wants followup. The analogy was > the per-page cost for faxes or copies that law firms charge their clients. > That's a charge my clients pay regardless of whether they are ultimately in > the right -- or not. > > Kiran Malancharuvil:There is quality discussion happening in the chat, would > prefer to move this to email > > Holly Raiche:@Don - look at the chat for discussion > > Michele Neylon:Stephanie - the email has been sent as far as I'm concerned. > If you're not getting it due to yuour spam filter I can't know that > > Graeme Bunton:Absolutely, carry on email > > Michele Neylon:So yeah - "go away" > > Christian Dawson:We should also keep in mind that a hard bounce is sometimes > a very temporary issue. As a hoster I have 1.4 million domains under my > control. My customers go over their disk space or don't pay their bills > aoccasionally and hard bounce for an hour, a day, a week. . They just bounce > temporarily in a nonmalicious, unintentional way. > > Michele Neylon:+1 Christian > > Kathy:@Mary and Terri: perhaps a special note to the List that the Chat had > a lot of important discussion due to problems with the bridge? > > Alex Deacon:@christian - you are describing a "soft bounce" (i.e. one that > may clear up at some point in the future) > > Stephanie Perrin:It would take only five minutes to read the chat into the > transcript. > > Holly Raiche:Too hard to hear > > Bladel 2:Thanks, Don and appreciate everyone making the effort. > > Susan kawaguchi:reading it won't help if you can't hear > > Kiran Malancharuvil:We should adjourn so that we don't miss anything > > Frank Michlick:no problems hearing via adobe connecgt > > Frank Michlick:-g > > Holly Raiche:Barely > > Christian Dawson:Just goes to show we definitely need definitions and > explanations. > > Kathy:+1 Christian > > steve metalitz:@Stephanie, no it is allocating the cost for failure to give > the provider an e-mail address at which you can be reached. > > val sherman:+1 Michele. Yes, Stephanie -- Message received but ignored OR > message caught by spam filter is not a delivery failure. Delivery failure is > not the same as failure to respond. > > Holly Raiche:I don't think the issue is cost so much as working through what > is meant by becoming aware - once we have done that, then we can talk about > cost > > Chris Pelling:totally agree > > Holly Raiche:The chat is working well > > Mary Wong:@Holly, yes that was the idea behind this language, particularly > following the hard v soft bounce discussion some time ago. > > Chris Pelling:cant hear anything > > Kathy:I thought we had narrowed the "non-response" issues down to technical > ones... > > Chris Pelling:Is Steve talking ? > > Stephanie Perrin:Yes Steve is talking > > Kathy:yes Chris > > Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - > > Chris Pelling:ok, well cant hear him here in :( > > Chris Pelling:Im listening to adobe connect only now > > Holly Raiche:Go to Val's earlier comment - > > Christian Dawson:Steve, email is not reliable enough for that to be at all > practical. > > Don Blumenthal:Steve is talking. To summarize, hard bounce = bad address. > P?P registrant should pay > > Mary Wong:Steve is comng across clearly on the audio bridge, other speakers > not so much. Apologies, all - we are having IT look into this. We've never had > this problem to Terri's and my knowledge. > > Chris Pelling:ok, sorry, disagree > > Chris Pelling:for so many reasons, but the main one is not all servers are > setup to reply with a hard bounce > > Chris Pelling:I can hear Don aok > > Stephanie Perrin:So we need a volunteer to rewrite this so that it is clear, > without using the word hard bounce. > > Chris Pelling:But Don we might not get ANY response so as far as we know it > has gone > > Chris Pelling:perfect > > Kathy:who is talking? > > Chris Pelling:I think Christina > > Luc Seufer:I think it's Chrisitian > > Holly Raiche:@ Stepanie - and Kathy - we need language to agree with wha are > now technical descriptions of the difficulties is KNOWING if he message has > reached its desination > > Chris Pelling:Christian * > > Mary Wong:The idea of conditioning provider notification upon a provider > actually getting a notice of a bounce was discussed but rejected including for > reasons that Christian is describing. > > Don Blumenthal:To my world? Yeah, I can see why ICANN might be seen as being > an alien conspiracy. > > Kathy:@Holly, agree > > Chris Pelling:soft is temorary where a server will try every 4 hours, > whereas hard bounce is permanent delivery failure > > Kathy:@Christian, I think we should use the technical terminology -- and > define it very clearly as well. > > David Cake:That terminology sounds OK. > > Kathy:@Don: "timely, affirmative notice of nondelivery"? > > David Cake:We should not use hard bounce because that is quite specific to > email > > Holly Raiche:I like Kathy's suggestion > > Chris Pelling:might be useful for a read : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounce_message > > Stephanie Perrin:How would one define "permanent Non-delivery" > > Chris Pelling:I cant > > Chris Pelling:cant hear anyone a > > Chris Pelling:Don I could hear > > Don Blumenthal:Timely affirmative notice of permanent nondelivery? > > Frank Michlick:bounces aren't always realtime > > Holly Raiche:Thanks Chris - we may need to go to that language > > Chris Pelling:define timely > > Frank Michlick:some include temporary and multiple delivery attemptsxz > > Frank Michlick:-xz > > Chris Pelling:Don = loud and clear > > Stephanie Perrin:My question is how does my provider know that non-delivery > is permanent? > > Holly Raiche:Maybe we can use the list to define things like bounce and > timely > > Luc Seufer:ICANN definition of timely should be funny > > Carlton Samuels:@David: I'm trying to make a distinction between what > happens when we know a communication did not reach its destination and when > there is no actionable evidence. The first instance is addressed by the > language 'when there is an affirmative.....'. With no actionable evidence of > delivery, then we might have a provision that says what next. My what next is > that there is a time factor that should be invoked and once that runs out, a > definite response required by the provider. If the customer is AWOL then > compel cancellation. > > Chris Pelling:Stephanuie, if your server company set the server up correctly > you SHOULD get a response stating that the message had a permanent delivery > failure > > Kathy:I just can't see it being a permanent liability for proxy/privacy > providers... > > Chris Pelling:but its down to the company that set it up > > Luc Seufer:the launch of the new gTLD program was operated in a timely > manner > > Chris Pelling:cant hear anything > > Chris Pelling:Luc - its still going :p > > Chris Pelling:and what are we up to now, a year ? :p > > Don Blumenthal:Luc, applicants might argue that "timely" point. :) > > Holly Raiche:@ Mary and Don - try to capture the language that is being > suggested in the chat > > Chris Pelling:no one talking ? > > Don Blumenthal:Mary is > > Chris Pelling:ok I can hear Don not Mary > > Chris Pelling::( > > Kathy:Tx Don - great leadership under rought circumstances! > > Kathy:Tx All! > > steve metalitz:thanks Don > > Holly Raiche:Tks > > > > > >

1 0

Issues left from the last couple of weeks
by Don Blumenthal Dec. 8, 2014

Dec. 8, 2014

Some issues that remain from D and E. I hope that we can resolve them on the list and then during drafting rather than take call time. D. Transactional/nontransactional definition Steve formulated a definition on the call two weeks ago, subject to comment from WG members who support the p/p eligibility categories. I haven't seen any response so here it is again from the transcript: "[D]omains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations." E. We focused on Relay last week but didn't get as far as we had hoped because of audio issues. I copied language from the template and put additions based on where I think we wound up in bold. Please take a look and send comments on the issues as well as my language. A P/P service provider [should] [must] notify the requestor upon becoming aware through a timely affirmative notification of a persistent failure that delivery of the original form of electronic communication has failed. Notification may be by means of a technical mechanism or other means that relays notice of the delivery failure to the requestor and/or provides the requestor with alternate ways to escalate the issue. As part of an escalation process, and provided there has been a certain minimum number of affirmative persistent delivery failures of an electronic communication within a certain specified time frame [TBD], the provider [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its customer. A provider should have the ability to select the most appropriate means of forwarding (including to account for issues of cost) [and to charge a reasonable fee] [and any such reasonable fee is to be borne by the customer and not the requestor] Additional questions from the first paragraph: 1) I was asked to focus on the forward may = disclosure issue that I already send a note about. 2) Should vs must in the first line. I was tempted to bold "must" but am noit sure that I interpreted something correctly. Additional questions from the second paragraph: The audio issues were a particular roadblock. We still need to address: 1) Must vs should 2) Cost recovery 3) Who pays if there is cost recovery. A vigorous chat session helped with respect to the audio challenges. Kathy circulated it once but It's here also for convenience. Talk to you on Tuesday. Don Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 02 December 2014: Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 02 December 2014 Stephanie Perrin:Wow, I am the first one. Mark this on the calendar! Theo Geurts:we shall remember Theo Geurts:good afternoon all. Chris Pelling:afternopon all Chris Pelling:afternoon * Graeme Bunton:Good morning all Bladel:Good morning. Bladel:Who is "D"? Graeme Bunton:someone is a little heavy on the breathing D:"D" is Don B. I'll fix in a minute. Bladel:Ah, ok. :) Graeme Bunton:Sounds ok to me Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Thanks Terri! Kiran Malancharuvil:Its okay to me Chris Pelling:its breaking y up here in the uk Michele Neylon:I'm hearing stutter on both lines Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:James sounds choppy to me as well. Holly Raiche:Yes Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:graeme, sorry. Kiran Malancharuvil:You're fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge Bladel:James isn't speaking. :) Chris Pelling:I rang in and both sound like daleks Susan kawaguchi:dialed in and both are choppy Alex Deacon:sounds loud and clear on the adobe Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Michele Neylon:I'm dialled in nad it's bad Michele Neylon:the lady speaking is fine Michele Neylon:not sure who that is Michele Neylon:Mary maybe? Chris Pelling:agree with michele Christian Dawson:Agree - fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge Michele Neylon:everyone else sounds terrible Mary Wong:@Michele, that's Terri with the soothing clear speaking voice. Christian Dawson:Michele is that a value judgment? Carlton Samuels:Morning all Michele Neylon:Mary - so Terri is a woman? Michele Neylon:I didn't know that Chris Pelling:don sounds non existant now Michele Neylon:and now we have silence Chris Pelling:yes terry Carlton Samuels:Yes, loud and clear Chris Pelling:don is crackling Michele Neylon:Don's line is bad Alex Deacon:don sounds great on the adobe Michele Neylon:Graeme try please Kiran Malancharuvil:Don needs to call back into the audio bridge Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing Don very clearly! Bladel:Graeme is also breaking up., I think. Holly Raiche:The rest of us are fine - Don's still fuzzy Mary Wong:@Graeme, that seems to be right. Kathy:Full House! Don Blumenthal:still working on connection Bladel:Graeme is also a bit choppy. Bladel::) Carlton Samuels:Hi Terri, Please record me present and count Mary Wong:@Carlton, thank you - we will. Michele Neylon:I'm connected via both phone and adobe Christian Dawson:Just switched to Adobe only it's much better today Terri Agnew:@ Carlton, will do Michele Neylon:switched to adobe Michele Neylon:audio is clearer Holly Raiche:AGree with Michele - the audio on adobe is fine - the dial in is fuzzy Chris Pelling:someone now has an echo Terri Agnew:apologies everyone for the choppy audio on telephone. We are working on trying to get this to clear up Michele Neylon:I've muted my microphone so it's not me vicky sheckler:apologies - i need to drop off Chris Pelling:I cant hear anything on adoibe :/ Chris Pelling:so will listen to the crackle and make best do Terri Agnew:adobe seems to be the best option at the moment Don Blumenthal:I'm back on line. Graeme Bunton:Great Mary Wong:Please note that the options (still under discussion) have been placed in square brackets in the current text. Volker Greimann:apologies, previous meeting was running into overtime Carlton Samuels:Yes we have control Holly Raiche:We have control of the screen Kathy:We may still be in our turkey-induced coma (for those who celebrated Thanksgiving) Stephanie Perrin:Graeme while your technique is excellent, it might be rash to move on to the next item yet...:-) Kathy:No, can't hear Steve Kathy:yes Chris Pelling:I can hear steve Carlton Samuels:Yes can hear Steve Paul McGrady:Sorry I'm late. Michele Neylon:can't hear him Michele Neylon:oh I can now Chris Pelling:this is very flakey today Chris Pelling:I cant hear on adobe connect Steve Chris Pelling:but I can on the phjone Chris Pelling:Just because there is no response, does not show contact issue steve metalitz:Is there objection to "must" in the first paragraph? Chris Pelling:thus even if you pay for it, its not to get a guranteed response Holly Raiche:Can't hear very well Kathy:@Steve, yes. Chris Pelling:on 1 Steve it should be stating Electronic Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Steve David Cake:so Steve, you are talking about a hard bounce in email, or equivalent? steve metalitz:old hand Kathy:@All, yes being that "should" should be kept as "should" in the first sentence Bladel 2:Thanks for clarifying,. Can we get some language inserted in to the text somewhere so it is clear? Chris Pelling:Kathy is clear Holly Raiche:Isn't the problem if the message is sent - and may be received, but is not responded to . Aside from a hard bounce, could a registrar p/p KNOW the email has or has not been sent Mary Wong:All, the WG agreed previously to NOT use language like "hard " or "soft" bounces. David Cake:Did we? What language did we agree to use instead? Luc Seufer:twerking was porposed if memory serves Mary Wong:@David, that is what our notes show. Hence the chairs/staff suggestion in Cat E when it was first circulated, about delivery failure. Holly Raiche:It is still hard to hear on a dial out Chris Pelling:But not all servers do that Carlton Samuels:There are standard repsonses for email! Maybe we should eliminate the ones we don't mean Kathy:@Alex, I hate to ask, but couldyou summarize your comments in the Chat? Chris Pelling:Not all servers are setup to rspond like that Kathy:You are breaking up a bit... Philip Corwin:The phone bridge audio is atrocious. Brittle, crackling, fading in and out with an intermittent echo. Michele Neylon:if the wording is broad enough to alllow for the technical realities of some mail servers being dumb .. Kiran Malancharuvil:Not technically difficult from MarkMonitor's perspective Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Alex's point Michele Neylon:Kiran - how many mail users do you host? Alex Deacon:@don - agree that should be the focus. Terri Agnew:as a reminder, please mute microphone and telephone when not speaking. We are still troubling shooting the audio issue Kiran Malancharuvil:Good question, can relay back to Matt Serlin who gave me quick answers rather than detailed analysis. Holly Raiche:Isn't the suggestion that if the p/p becomes aware that the message has not been delivered, they MUST use another method of communication Michele Neylon:+1 to James Carlton Samuels:@Don: Just say that - 'when there is an affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address' Michele Neylon:we often see issues with mail being sent to Hotmail / Gmail etc., Michele Neylon:and you often don't get back any useful errors Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - agree with suggestion Susan kawaguchi:only getting every other word that james is saying Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Then there is no affirmative notice so we do the next thing after time t; escalate Chris Pelling:dropped phone bridge Stephanie Perrin:Agree with James. Elegantly put. Bladel 2:Dang. I even dropped off the phone bridge to fix audio issue. Holly Raiche:@ James - could you put something in the chat - you were hard to hear Bladel 2::( Christian Dawson:It's not you James it's the bridge in general steve metalitz:@James what about Carlton's proposal: 'when there is an affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address'? Christian Dawson:By the way, +1 to your comments, James Bladel 2:The simplest summary: Reliability of detecting delivery failure breaks down as scale increases. val sherman:I think we are talking about situations where the Provider is aware of repeated delivery failures. One other point: since the Customer is required to provide a working email by the terms of service, would it not be in violation of the terms if there is repeated failure of delivery that the Provider is aware of? If so, might an additional option for the Provider be to terminate the service? Holly Raiche:What is the conclusion please Holly Raiche:@ Val - I was thinking along those lines Bladel 2:@Steve: that works, if we can clarify in the text. Stephanie Perrin:James said that costs should follow the benefitting user. Kathy:@Mary, I think this is this is the time for some clarification Kathy:It seems to be warranted at this point in the discussion... Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - could we clarify please Mary Wong:The idea for the notification is that it is triggered when the provider "becomes aware". Stephanie Perrin:From a consumer protection standpoint, to avoid harrassment, there should be some costs accruing to the party making the allegations of abuse. Kathy:@Mary: that seems very loose at this point in time Kathy:it is not bounded by time, system response, etc Chris Pelling:+1 Stephanie steve metalitz:@Don, yes, provider should offer alternative upon request after specified number of hard bounces. Kristina Rosette:+1 to Steve Bladel 2:It could be offered as a premium service. Susan kawaguchi:If the allegations of abuse are found to be accurate would you advocate the registrant then be charged for the communication Holly Raiche:@ Steve - isn't he problem that there may not be 'hard' bounces? Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above\ steve metalitz:@Don I was responding to the question you posed..... Mary Wong:Just for clarity - are we going back to the "hard bounce" language? Luc Seufer:do we have a definition for it? Stephanie Perrin:If I put someone who is bugging me into my spam filters, do you define that as a hard bounce? Innocent (read naive) question. Carlton Samuels:@Don: The rule should compel a declared form of communication for the provider. It is the responsibility of the communicators to keep that communication line open and available. We should just say if the response is not fortcoming within a certain time then next step is the defined escalation for communication to be effected. That then becomes the cost of the beneficial user, this time the requestor. Michele Neylon:Stephanie - your spam filter probably wouldn't bounce Chris Pelling:if the bridge worked we might Susan kawaguchi:can barely hear anything on audio Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - agree Mary Wong:@Luc, that was one of the issues when the language was first discussed, including at the WG F2F in LA. Darcy Southwell:The audio is very hard to follow Luc Seufer:Or the preferred way of communication of lawyers: sending 20 meg attachements, does this constitute hard bounce? Bladel 2:I'm starting to think we abandon this call. :( Susan kawaguchi:should we just go to email and forget the call Holly Raiche:Actually in most cases Kathy:@Susan: impossible tracking problem for registrars. how long would it take until the abuse is proven - and then if it is appealed? Chris Pelling:also as Luc pointed out Chris Pelling:A lot of mail servers have message limits Susan kawaguchi:@Kathy so why punish the requestor only when most requests are very targeted to domain names with bad behavior Stephanie Perrin:@Michele, ok so then the message is received but tucked into my spam filters. What does the upset sender do then and is there any reason why the service provider should pick up the cost of sending by registered mail. Susan kawaguchi:dropping off call will follow in chat as I cannot understand anything on audio Michele Neylon:Stephanie - if it doesn't bounce then I don't know about it .. Luc Seufer:@Mary thanks so we don't Terri Agnew:Apologies everyone, we are working with Tech Support but not having much luck to clear up audio Stephanie Perrin:@Michele but you will hear from the sender again....at which point you tell them the message was received. Go away. Correct? Holly Raiche:@ Dave - I think the issue won't go away until it is clear what amounts to a p/p provider becoming aware Kathy:@Susan, we were talking earlier (original discussion) about charging a small/reasonable charge to the requestor who wants followup. The analogy was the per-page cost for faxes or copies that law firms charge their clients. That's a charge my clients pay regardless of whether they are ultimately in the right -- or not. Kiran Malancharuvil:There is quality discussion happening in the chat, would prefer to move this to email Holly Raiche:@Don - look at the chat for discussion Michele Neylon:Stephanie - the email has been sent as far as I'm concerned. If you're not getting it due to yuour spam filter I can't know that Graeme Bunton:Absolutely, carry on email Michele Neylon:So yeah - "go away" Christian Dawson:We should also keep in mind that a hard bounce is sometimes a very temporary issue. As a hoster I have 1.4 million domains under my control. My customers go over their disk space or don't pay their bills aoccasionally and hard bounce for an hour, a day, a week. . They just bounce temporarily in a nonmalicious, unintentional way. Michele Neylon:+1 Christian Kathy:@Mary and Terri: perhaps a special note to the List that the Chat had a lot of important discussion due to problems with the bridge? Alex Deacon:@christian - you are describing a "soft bounce" (i.e. one that may clear up at some point in the future) Stephanie Perrin:It would take only five minutes to read the chat into the transcript. Holly Raiche:Too hard to hear Bladel 2:Thanks, Don and appreciate everyone making the effort. Susan kawaguchi:reading it won't help if you can't hear Kiran Malancharuvil:We should adjourn so that we don't miss anything Frank Michlick:no problems hearing via adobe connecgt Frank Michlick:-g Holly Raiche:Barely Christian Dawson:Just goes to show we definitely need definitions and explanations. Kathy:+1 Christian steve metalitz:@Stephanie, no it is allocating the cost for failure to give the provider an e-mail address at which you can be reached. val sherman:+1 Michele. Yes, Stephanie -- Message received but ignored OR message caught by spam filter is not a delivery failure. Delivery failure is not the same as failure to respond. Holly Raiche:I don't think the issue is cost so much as working through what is meant by becoming aware - once we have done that, then we can talk about cost Chris Pelling:totally agree Holly Raiche:The chat is working well Mary Wong:@Holly, yes that was the idea behind this language, particularly following the hard v soft bounce discussion some time ago. Chris Pelling:cant hear anything Kathy:I thought we had narrowed the "non-response" issues down to technical ones... Chris Pelling:Is Steve talking ? Stephanie Perrin:Yes Steve is talking Kathy:yes Chris Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - Chris Pelling:ok, well cant hear him here in :( Chris Pelling:Im listening to adobe connect only now Holly Raiche:Go to Val's earlier comment - Christian Dawson:Steve, email is not reliable enough for that to be at all practical. Don Blumenthal:Steve is talking. To summarize, hard bounce = bad address. P?P registrant should pay Mary Wong:Steve is comng across clearly on the audio bridge, other speakers not so much. Apologies, all - we are having IT look into this. We've never had this problem to Terri's and my knowledge. Chris Pelling:ok, sorry, disagree Chris Pelling:for so many reasons, but the main one is not all servers are setup to reply with a hard bounce Chris Pelling:I can hear Don aok Stephanie Perrin:So we need a volunteer to rewrite this so that it is clear, without using the word hard bounce. Chris Pelling:But Don we might not get ANY response so as far as we know it has gone Chris Pelling:perfect Kathy:who is talking? Chris Pelling:I think Christina Luc Seufer:I think it's Chrisitian Holly Raiche:@ Stepanie - and Kathy - we need language to agree with wha are now technical descriptions of the difficulties is KNOWING if he message has reached its desination Chris Pelling:Christian * Mary Wong:The idea of conditioning provider notification upon a provider actually getting a notice of a bounce was discussed but rejected including for reasons that Christian is describing. Don Blumenthal:To my world? Yeah, I can see why ICANN might be seen as being an alien conspiracy. Kathy:@Holly, agree Chris Pelling:soft is temorary where a server will try every 4 hours, whereas hard bounce is permanent delivery failure Kathy:@Christian, I think we should use the technical terminology -- and define it very clearly as well. David Cake:That terminology sounds OK. Kathy:@Don: "timely, affirmative notice of nondelivery"? David Cake:We should not use hard bounce because that is quite specific to email Holly Raiche:I like Kathy's suggestion Chris Pelling:might be useful for a read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounce_message Stephanie Perrin:How would one define "permanent Non-delivery" Chris Pelling:I cant Chris Pelling:cant hear anyone a Chris Pelling:Don I could hear Don Blumenthal:Timely affirmative notice of permanent nondelivery? Frank Michlick:bounces aren't always realtime Holly Raiche:Thanks Chris - we may need to go to that language Chris Pelling:define timely Frank Michlick:some include temporary and multiple delivery attemptsxz Frank Michlick:-xz Chris Pelling:Don = loud and clear Stephanie Perrin:My question is how does my provider know that non-delivery is permanent? Holly Raiche:Maybe we can use the list to define things like bounce and timely Luc Seufer:ICANN definition of timely should be funny Carlton Samuels:@David: I'm trying to make a distinction between what happens when we know a communication did not reach its destination and when there is no actionable evidence. The first instance is addressed by the language 'when there is an affirmative.....'. With no actionable evidence of delivery, then we might have a provision that says what next. My what next is that there is a time factor that should be invoked and once that runs out, a definite response required by the provider. If the customer is AWOL then compel cancellation. Chris Pelling:Stephanuie, if your server company set the server up correctly you SHOULD get a response stating that the message had a permanent delivery failure Kathy:I just can't see it being a permanent liability for proxy/privacy providers... Chris Pelling:but its down to the company that set it up Luc Seufer:the launch of the new gTLD program was operated in a timely manner Chris Pelling:cant hear anything Chris Pelling:Luc - its still going :p Chris Pelling:and what are we up to now, a year ? :p Don Blumenthal:Luc, applicants might argue that "timely" point. :) Holly Raiche:@ Mary and Don - try to capture the language that is being suggested in the chat Chris Pelling:no one talking ? Don Blumenthal:Mary is Chris Pelling:ok I can hear Don not Mary Chris Pelling::( Kathy:Tx Don - great leadership under rought circumstances! Kathy:Tx All! steve metalitz:thanks Don Holly Raiche:Tks

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
by Don Blumenthal Dec. 5, 2014

Dec. 5, 2014

Barry, Thanks. It may be a fair summary of the thread, which I have not finished going through. However, we have spent a lot of time on calls and earlier threads discussing email delivery issues, including different kinds of bounces: e.g., delivery failed permanently vs "couldn't deliver but we'll try again." We still are working on how to define delivery failure for the purposes of when p/p provider will have to take further action. Don -----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 3:08 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology The discussion seems to imply there are two possible outcomes of testing an email address: It bounces, or it does not. But in reality there are many possible outcomes: 1. Bounces. 2. Delivered to the intended party. 3. Disappears into a black hole. 4. Delivered but ignored, perhaps to a spam inbox for example. 5. Auto-replied (e.g., this is an unmonitored email address...) 6. Delivered but to someone other than the intended party who may or may not take any action. I usually delete such email as it's indistinguishable from spam. There are other possibilities. It seems to me the entire scheme being discussed can only really deal with the first two cases, or put better all but the first are taken as equivalent. That is, a bounce is indicative of non-compliance, anything else is de facto compliant. Is that a fair summary? -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

1 0

Interesting article
by Volker Greimann Dec. 5, 2014

Dec. 5, 2014

Point in case for positive uses of whois privacy: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/12/04/whois-privacy-big-company/#more-32594 Not relevant to the current discussion of relay and reveal, but still interesting... -- 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(a)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(a)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.

3 2

Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
by Christian Dawson Dec. 5, 2014

Dec. 5, 2014

Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ <http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/> I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net dawson(a)servint.com <mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------

4 3

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 02 December 2014 at 1500 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

Dear All, Apologies for the audio quality on today’s call. We are still investigating the issue. Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 02 December 2014 at 15:00 UTC. at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20141202-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20141202-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec> 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/> 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 Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Darcy Southwell – RrSG Alex Deacon – IPC Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Jim Bikoff – IPC Paul McGrady – IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Phil Corwin – BC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Todd Williams – IPC Susan Prosser – RrSG Keith Kupferschmid – IPC Vicky Scheckler – IPC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC David Heasley - IPC Holly Raiche – ALAC Christian Dawson-ISPCP Carlton Samuels – ALAC Michele Neylon – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG David Cake – NCSG Luc Seufer – RrSG Apologies : Dick Leaning – no soi Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Danielle Andela Terri Agnew ** 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 02 December 2014: Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 02 December 2014 Stephanie Perrin:Wow, I am the first one. Mark this on the calendar! Theo Geurts:we shall remember Theo Geurts:good afternoon all. Chris Pelling:afternopon all Chris Pelling:afternoon * Graeme Bunton:Good morning all Bladel:Good morning. Bladel:Who is "D"? Graeme Bunton:someone is a little heavy on the breathing D:"D" is Don B. I'll fix in a minute. Bladel:Ah, ok. :) Graeme Bunton:Sounds ok to me Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Thanks Terri! Kiran Malancharuvil:Its okay to me Chris Pelling:its breaking y up here in the uk Michele Neylon:I'm hearing stutter on both lines Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:James sounds choppy to me as well. Holly Raiche:Yes Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:graeme, sorry. Kiran Malancharuvil:You're fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge Bladel:James isn't speaking. :) Chris Pelling:I rang in and both sound like daleks Susan kawaguchi:dialed in and both are choppy Alex Deacon:sounds loud and clear on the adobe Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Michele Neylon:I'm dialled in nad it's bad Michele Neylon:the lady speaking is fine Michele Neylon:not sure who that is Michele Neylon:Mary maybe? Chris Pelling:agree with michele Christian Dawson:Agree - fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge Michele Neylon:everyone else sounds terrible Mary Wong:@Michele, that's Terri with the soothing clear speaking voice. Christian Dawson:Michele is that a value judgment? Carlton Samuels:Morning all Michele Neylon:Mary - so Terri is a woman? Michele Neylon:I didn't know that Chris Pelling:don sounds non existant now Michele Neylon:and now we have silence Chris Pelling:yes terry Carlton Samuels:Yes, loud and clear Chris Pelling:don is crackling Michele Neylon:Don's line is bad Alex Deacon:don sounds great on the adobe Michele Neylon:Graeme try please Kiran Malancharuvil:Don needs to call back into the audio bridge Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing Don very clearly! Bladel:Graeme is also breaking up., I think. Holly Raiche:The rest of us are fine - Don's still fuzzy Mary Wong:@Graeme, that seems to be right. Kathy:Full House! Don Blumenthal:still working on connection Bladel:Graeme is also a bit choppy. Bladel::) Carlton Samuels:Hi Terri, Please record me present and count Mary Wong:@Carlton, thank you - we will. Michele Neylon:I'm connected via both phone and adobe Christian Dawson:Just switched to Adobe only it's much better today Terri Agnew:@ Carlton, will do Michele Neylon:switched to adobe Michele Neylon:audio is clearer Holly Raiche:AGree with Michele - the audio on adobe is fine - the dial in is fuzzy Chris Pelling:someone now has an echo Terri Agnew:apologies everyone for the choppy audio on telephone. We are working on trying to get this to clear up Michele Neylon:I've muted my microphone so it's not me vicky sheckler:apologies - i need to drop off Chris Pelling:I cant hear anything on adoibe :/ Chris Pelling:so will listen to the crackle and make best do Terri Agnew:adobe seems to be the best option at the moment Don Blumenthal:I'm back on line. Graeme Bunton:Great Mary Wong:Please note that the options (still under discussion) have been placed in square brackets in the current text. Volker Greimann:apologies, previous meeting was running into overtime Carlton Samuels:Yes we have control Holly Raiche:We have control of the screen Kathy:We may still be in our turkey-induced coma (for those who celebrated Thanksgiving) Stephanie Perrin:Graeme while your technique is excellent, it might be rash to move on to the next item yet...:-) Kathy:No, can't hear Steve Kathy:yes Chris Pelling:I can hear steve Carlton Samuels:Yes can hear Steve Paul McGrady:Sorry I'm late. Michele Neylon:can't hear him Michele Neylon:oh I can now Chris Pelling:this is very flakey today Chris Pelling:I cant hear on adobe connect Steve Chris Pelling:but I can on the phjone Chris Pelling:Just because there is no response, does not show contact issue steve metalitz:Is there objection to "must" in the first paragraph? Chris Pelling:thus even if you pay for it, its not to get a guranteed response Holly Raiche:Can't hear very well Kathy:@Steve, yes. Chris Pelling:on 1 Steve it should be stating Electronic Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Steve David Cake:so Steve, you are talking about a hard bounce in email, or equivalent? steve metalitz:old hand Kathy:@All, yes being that "should" should be kept as "should" in the first sentence Bladel 2:Thanks for clarifying,. Can we get some language inserted in to the text somewhere so it is clear? Chris Pelling:Kathy is clear Holly Raiche:Isn't the problem if the message is sent - and may be received, but is not responded to . Aside from a hard bounce, could a registrar p/p KNOW the email has or has not been sent Mary Wong:All, the WG agreed previously to NOT use language like "hard " or "soft" bounces. David Cake:Did we? What language did we agree to use instead? Luc Seufer:twerking was porposed if memory serves Mary Wong:@David, that is what our notes show. Hence the chairs/staff suggestion in Cat E when it was first circulated, about delivery failure. Holly Raiche:It is still hard to hear on a dial out Chris Pelling:But not all servers do that Carlton Samuels:There are standard repsonses for email! Maybe we should eliminate the ones we don't mean Kathy:@Alex, I hate to ask, but couldyou summarize your comments in the Chat? Chris Pelling:Not all servers are setup to rspond like that Kathy:You are breaking up a bit... Philip Corwin:The phone bridge audio is atrocious. Brittle, crackling, fading in and out with an intermittent echo. Michele Neylon:if the wording is broad enough to alllow for the technical realities of some mail servers being dumb .. Kiran Malancharuvil:Not technically difficult from MarkMonitor's perspective Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Alex's point Michele Neylon:Kiran - how many mail users do you host? Alex Deacon:@don - agree that should be the focus. Terri Agnew:as a reminder, please mute microphone and telephone when not speaking. We are still troubling shooting the audio issue Kiran Malancharuvil:Good question, can relay back to Matt Serlin who gave me quick answers rather than detailed analysis. Holly Raiche:Isn't the suggestion that if the p/p becomes aware that the message has not been delivered, they MUST use another method of communication Michele Neylon:+1 to James Carlton Samuels:@Don: Just say that - 'when there is an affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address' Michele Neylon:we often see issues with mail being sent to Hotmail / Gmail etc., Michele Neylon:and you often don't get back any useful errors Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - agree with suggestion Susan kawaguchi:only getting every other word that james is saying Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Then there is no affirmative notice so we do the next thing after time t; escalate Chris Pelling:dropped phone bridge Stephanie Perrin:Agree with James. Elegantly put. Bladel 2:Dang. I even dropped off the phone bridge to fix audio issue. Holly Raiche:@ James - could you put something in the chat - you were hard to hear Bladel 2::( Christian Dawson:It's not you James it's the bridge in general steve metalitz:@James what about Carlton's proposal: 'when there is an affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address'? Christian Dawson:By the way, +1 to your comments, James Bladel 2:The simplest summary: Reliability of detecting delivery failure breaks down as scale increases. val sherman:I think we are talking about situations where the Provider is aware of repeated delivery failures. One other point: since the Customer is required to provide a working email by the terms of service, would it not be in violation of the terms if there is repeated failure of delivery that the Provider is aware of? If so, might an additional option for the Provider be to terminate the service? Holly Raiche:What is the conclusion please Holly Raiche:@ Val - I was thinking along those lines Bladel 2:@Steve: that works, if we can clarify in the text. Stephanie Perrin:James said that costs should follow the benefitting user. Kathy:@Mary, I think this is this is the time for some clarification Kathy:It seems to be warranted at this point in the discussion... Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - could we clarify please Mary Wong:The idea for the notification is that it is triggered when the provider "becomes aware". Stephanie Perrin:From a consumer protection standpoint, to avoid harrassment, there should be some costs accruing to the party making the allegations of abuse. Kathy:@Mary: that seems very loose at this point in time Kathy:it is not bounded by time, system response, etc Chris Pelling:+1 Stephanie steve metalitz:@Don, yes, provider should offer alternative upon request after specified number of hard bounces. Kristina Rosette:+1 to Steve Bladel 2:It could be offered as a premium service. Susan kawaguchi:If the allegations of abuse are found to be accurate would you advocate the registrant then be charged for the communication Holly Raiche:@ Steve - isn't he problem that there may not be 'hard' bounces? Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above\ steve metalitz:@Don I was responding to the question you posed..... Mary Wong:Just for clarity - are we going back to the "hard bounce" language? Luc Seufer:do we have a definition for it? Stephanie Perrin:If I put someone who is bugging me into my spam filters, do you define that as a hard bounce? Innocent (read naive) question. Carlton Samuels:@Don: The rule should compel a declared form of communication for the provider. It is the responsibility of the communicators to keep that communication line open and available. We should just say if the response is not fortcoming within a certain time then next step is the defined escalation for communication to be effected. That then becomes the cost of the beneficial user, this time the requestor. Michele Neylon:Stephanie - your spam filter probably wouldn't bounce Chris Pelling:if the bridge worked we might Susan kawaguchi:can barely hear anything on audio Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - agree Mary Wong:@Luc, that was one of the issues when the language was first discussed, including at the WG F2F in LA. Darcy Southwell:The audio is very hard to follow Luc Seufer:Or the preferred way of communication of lawyers: sending 20 meg attachements, does this constitute hard bounce? Bladel 2:I'm starting to think we abandon this call. :( Susan kawaguchi:should we just go to email and forget the call Holly Raiche:Actually in most cases Kathy:@Susan: impossible tracking problem for registrars. how long would it take until the abuse is proven - and then if it is appealed? Chris Pelling:also as Luc pointed out Chris Pelling:A lot of mail servers have message limits Susan kawaguchi:@Kathy so why punish the requestor only when most requests are very targeted to domain names with bad behavior Stephanie Perrin:@Michele, ok so then the message is received but tucked into my spam filters. What does the upset sender do then and is there any reason why the service provider should pick up the cost of sending by registered mail. Susan kawaguchi:dropping off call will follow in chat as I cannot understand anything on audio Michele Neylon:Stephanie - if it doesn't bounce then I don't know about it .. Luc Seufer:@Mary thanks so we don't Terri Agnew:Apologies everyone, we are working with Tech Support but not having much luck to clear up audio Stephanie Perrin:@Michele but you will hear from the sender again....at which point you tell them the message was received. Go away. Correct? Holly Raiche:@ Dave - I think the issue won't go away until it is clear what amounts to a p/p provider becoming aware Kathy:@Susan, we were talking earlier (original discussion) about charging a small/reasonable charge to the requestor who wants followup. The analogy was the per-page cost for faxes or copies that law firms charge their clients. That's a charge my clients pay regardless of whether they are ultimately in the right -- or not. Kiran Malancharuvil:There is quality discussion happening in the chat, would prefer to move this to email Holly Raiche:@Don - look at the chat for discussion Michele Neylon:Stephanie - the email has been sent as far as I'm concerned. If you're not getting it due to yuour spam filter I can't know that Graeme Bunton:Absolutely, carry on email Michele Neylon:So yeah - "go away" Christian Dawson:We should also keep in mind that a hard bounce is sometimes a very temporary issue. As a hoster I have 1.4 million domains under my control. My customers go over their disk space or don't pay their bills aoccasionally and hard bounce for an hour, a day, a week. . They just bounce temporarily in a nonmalicious, unintentional way. Michele Neylon:+1 Christian Kathy:@Mary and Terri: perhaps a special note to the List that the Chat had a lot of important discussion due to problems with the bridge? Alex Deacon:@christian - you are describing a "soft bounce" (i.e. one that may clear up at some point in the future) Stephanie Perrin:It would take only five minutes to read the chat into the transcript. Holly Raiche:Too hard to hear Bladel 2:Thanks, Don and appreciate everyone making the effort. Susan kawaguchi:reading it won't help if you can't hear Kiran Malancharuvil:We should adjourn so that we don't miss anything Frank Michlick:no problems hearing via adobe connecgt Frank Michlick:-g Holly Raiche:Barely Christian Dawson:Just goes to show we definitely need definitions and explanations. Kathy:+1 Christian steve metalitz:@Stephanie, no it is allocating the cost for failure to give the provider an e-mail address at which you can be reached. val sherman:+1 Michele. Yes, Stephanie -- Message received but ignored OR message caught by spam filter is not a delivery failure. Delivery failure is not the same as failure to respond. Holly Raiche:I don't think the issue is cost so much as working through what is meant by becoming aware - once we have done that, then we can talk about cost Chris Pelling:totally agree Holly Raiche:The chat is working well Mary Wong:@Holly, yes that was the idea behind this language, particularly following the hard v soft bounce discussion some time ago. Chris Pelling:cant hear anything Kathy:I thought we had narrowed the "non-response" issues down to technical ones... Chris Pelling:Is Steve talking ? Stephanie Perrin:Yes Steve is talking Kathy:yes Chris Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - Chris Pelling:ok, well cant hear him here in :( Chris Pelling:Im listening to adobe connect only now Holly Raiche:Go to Val's earlier comment - Christian Dawson:Steve, email is not reliable enough for that to be at all practical. Don Blumenthal:Steve is talking. To summarize, hard bounce = bad address. P?P registrant should pay Mary Wong:Steve is comng across clearly on the audio bridge, other speakers not so much. Apologies, all - we are having IT look into this. We've never had this problem to Terri's and my knowledge. Chris Pelling:ok, sorry, disagree Chris Pelling:for so many reasons, but the main one is not all servers are setup to reply with a hard bounce Chris Pelling:I can hear Don aok Stephanie Perrin:So we need a volunteer to rewrite this so that it is clear, without using the word hard bounce. Chris Pelling:But Don we might not get ANY response so as far as we know it has gone Chris Pelling:perfect Kathy:who is talking? Chris Pelling:I think Christina Luc Seufer:I think it's Chrisitian Holly Raiche:@ Stepanie - and Kathy - we need language to agree with wha are now technical descriptions of the difficulties is KNOWING if he message has reached its desination Chris Pelling:Christian * Mary Wong:The idea of conditioning provider notification upon a provider actually getting a notice of a bounce was discussed but rejected including for reasons that Christian is describing. Don Blumenthal:To my world? Yeah, I can see why ICANN might be seen as being an alien conspiracy. Kathy:@Holly, agree Chris Pelling:soft is temorary where a server will try every 4 hours, whereas hard bounce is permanent delivery failure Kathy:@Christian, I think we should use the technical terminology -- and define it very clearly as well. David Cake:That terminology sounds OK. Kathy:@Don: "timely, affirmative notice of nondelivery"? David Cake:We should not use hard bounce because that is quite specific to email Holly Raiche:I like Kathy's suggestion Chris Pelling:might be useful for a read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounce_message Stephanie Perrin:How would one define "permanent Non-delivery" Chris Pelling:I cant Chris Pelling:cant hear anyone a Chris Pelling:Don I could hear Don Blumenthal:Timely affirmative notice of permanent nondelivery? Frank Michlick:bounces aren't always realtime Holly Raiche:Thanks Chris - we may need to go to that language Chris Pelling:define timely Frank Michlick:some include temporary and multiple delivery attemptsxz Frank Michlick:-xz Chris Pelling:Don = loud and clear Stephanie Perrin:My question is how does my provider know that non-delivery is permanent? Holly Raiche:Maybe we can use the list to define things like bounce and timely Luc Seufer:ICANN definition of timely should be funny Carlton Samuels:@David: I'm trying to make a distinction between what happens when we know a communication did not reach its destination and when there is no actionable evidence. The first instance is addressed by the language 'when there is an affirmative.....'. With no actionable evidence of delivery, then we might have a provision that says what next. My what next is that there is a time factor that should be invoked and once that runs out, a definite response required by the provider. If the customer is AWOL then compel cancellation. Chris Pelling:Stephanuie, if your server company set the server up correctly you SHOULD get a response stating that the message had a permanent delivery failure Kathy:I just can't see it being a permanent liability for proxy/privacy providers... Chris Pelling:but its down to the company that set it up Luc Seufer:the launch of the new gTLD program was operated in a timely manner Chris Pelling:cant hear anything Chris Pelling:Luc - its still going :p Chris Pelling:and what are we up to now, a year ? :p Don Blumenthal:Luc, applicants might argue that "timely" point. :) Holly Raiche:@ Mary and Don - try to capture the language that is being suggested in the chat Chris Pelling:no one talking ? Don Blumenthal:Mary is Chris Pelling:ok I can hear Don not Mary Chris Pelling::( Kathy:Tx Don - great leadership under rought circumstances! Kathy:Tx All! steve metalitz:thanks Don Holly Raiche:Tks

2 1

Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 2 December
by Mary Wong Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday 2 December; I hope you will forgive the rather late transmission occasioned by the policy staff¹s being at the policy team¹s annual planning and informational meeting in Los Angeles this week. 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Finalize preliminary conclusions on Category E Relay (see attached) 3. Finalize preliminary conclusions on Category G Termination (see attached) 4. Next steps 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

EU + Ireland Distance Selling Rules
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

These are the legal requirements in Ireland and the EU. If consumers have issues they have recourse to their local consumer protection authorities etc., Ireland: http://corporate.nca.ie/eng/Business_Zone/Guides/Full%20List/Consumer_rules… EU: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/buy-sell-online/rights-e-comm… Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0