March 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Proposed agenda for WG meeting on 18 March (Re: For your review - template Category B - question 3)
by Mary Wong March 17, 2014

March 17, 2014

Dear all, Further to Marika's message and attachment (below), here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on 18 March at 1500 UTC (again, for WG members in North America, please note the correct time given the recent changeover from daylight savings time): 1. Roll Call/Update to SOIs 2. Finalize template for Category B Question 2 (updated as of 17 March to include all SG/C feedback received so far attached) 3. Commence discussions on Category B Question 3 (initial template forwarded earlier by Marika) 4. Next Steps/Next Meeting The WG wiki has also been updated with these documents: https://community.icann.org/x/oR3RAg 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 * One World. One Internet. * From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 6:40 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - template Category B - question 3 > Dear All, > > In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, please find attached the proposed > template for Category B question 3 (What rights and responsibilities should > domain name registrants that use privacy/proxy services have? What obligations > should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers have in managing these > rights and responsibilities? Clarify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR > policies should apply.) If there is any additional information that should be > added to the background section, please let me know. > > In relation to transfers, renewals and PEDNR policies, we've started to > develop a list of questions that the WG may need to consider in relation to > these policies. If there are any additional questions that should be included, > please feel free to suggest. We are hoping that some of the registrar members > will be able to shed a light on how these issues are currently handled and > whether or not these need to be factored into the WG recommendations. > * Per the ERRP, 'registrars must notify the registered name holder of the > expiration at least two times'. Should there be a requirement for the P/P > provider to pass these notices on to the P/P customer? > * Per the ERRP, 'if a registration is not renewed by the RAE or deleted by the > registrar, within five days after the expiration of the registration, the > registrar must transmit at least one additional expiration notice to the RAE > that includes instructions for renewing the registration'. Should there be a > requirement for the P/P provider to pass these notices on to the P/P customer? > * Per the ERRP, 'beginning at the time of expiration and through the DNS > resolution interruption period described in paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, the > RAE must be permitted by the registrar to renew the expired registration'. > What if the underlying customer wants to renew the registration? Idem for > restoration during the Redemption Grace Period. > * In relation to the IRTP, should there be any restrictions concerning > transfers of P/P registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and conditions require > the P/P services to be removed during the transfer process). Depending on the > response to this question, all communications in the IRTP currently go via the > transfer contact (Registered Name Holder / Admin Contact). Should there be any > requirements for this information to also be communicated to the P/P customer? > What happens if there is a disagreement relating to the transfer between the > P/P provider and the P/P customer? > Best regards, > > Marika

2 1

NCSG input to PPSAI WG
by Mary Wong March 17, 2014

March 17, 2014

Dear WG members, In addition to the IPC's and BC's responses that have been sent around previously, the NCSG has also sent in its input, which I attach to this email. All three SG/C responses have also now been added to the WG wiki. 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 * One World. One Internet. * From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:20 AM To: "Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: BC input to PPSAI WG > Dear WG members, > > We have also received the following input from the Business Constituency: > http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position%20PDP%20WG%20On%20Acc… > itation%20of%20Privacy%20and%20proxy%20services.pdf > > The general questions that the BC submits in its response follow from a short > conversation I had with Steve Delbianco, the BC's Vice Chair for Policy > Coordination. > > 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 > > * One World. One Internet. * > > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Date: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:24 PM > To: "Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] TR: IPC provisional responses to PPSAI WG > >> >> >> >> De : Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] >> Envoyé : lundi 10 mars 2014 15:37 >> À : 'gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org' >> Cc : Marika Konings; Mary Wong >> Objet : IPC provisional responses to PPSAI WG >> >> >> Dear Glen, >> >> >> >> Attached please find the provisional responses for the Intellectual Property >> Constituency to the questionnaire from the Privacy and Proxy Services >> Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group. Our responses to most of the >> questions can be found in italics. Please let me know if there are any >> questions. >> >> >> >> Steve Metalitz, IPC VP >> >> >> >> >> >>

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 11 March 2014 at 1500 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine March 11, 2014

March 11, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 11 March 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140311-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar%23mar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar 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: Luc Seufer - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tim Ruiz - RrSG Sarah Wyld - RrSG David Heasley - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - RySGgr Darcy Southwell - RrSG Don Blumenthal - RySG Libby Baney - BC Phil Marano - IPC Jim Bikoff - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Jennifer Standiford - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Osvalod Novoa - ISPCP Don Moody -IPC Todd Williams - IPC Apologies: Michele Neylon - RrSG Roy Balleste - NCUC Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Prosser - RrSG Kristina Rosette - IPC Stephanie Perrin- NCSG Joe Catapano - staff ICANN staff: Mary Wong Margie Milam Amy Bivins Mike Zupke Marika Konings 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/> 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, Nathalie Peregrine ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 11 March 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 11 March 2014 Valeriya Sherman:Jim Bikoff and Griffin Barnett are also on the call Nathalie Peregrine:Thanks , noted! Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Nathalie Peregrine:Marie-Laure Lemineur has joined the cal Marika Konings:For further details about the meeting in Singapore, please see http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ppsa Luc Seufer:Ladies, Gentlemen Nathalie Peregrine:Graeme Bunton is also on the call Nathalie Peregrine:Libby Baney is on the audio bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Tim Ruiz has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Jennifer Standiford ha sjust joined Tim Ruiz:What time? Nathalie Peregrine:15;00 UTC Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the call Carlton Samuels:Good morning all Mary Wong:For North America, it means we stay on the same time as this week. Volker Greimann:Turn on magnification of 1000% Don Blumenthal:And connect to a 60 inch TV Kathy Kleiman:Can someone please post the link to the file? Mary Wong:Kathy: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47257522/Affiliated%20PP%20 Providers%20T%26Cs%20-%2010%20March.xlsx?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47257522/Affiliated%20PP%2 0Providers%20T%26Cs%20-%2010%20March.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1394533 630000&api=v2> &modificationDate=1394533630000&api=v2 Kathy Kleiman:Tx Mary! Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the call Kathy Kleiman:Alas, we can't see anything :-( Kathy Kleiman:But it looks like a good sheet to study - and tx for pulling together this data! Valeriya Sherman:Does anybody know how many P/P providers are there currently? And how many of those are affiliated with registrars, in the sense of being subsidiaries? Valeriya Sherman:Val;) Tim Ruiz:Do lawyers count? Mary Wong:We don't have any comprehensive survey or means of objectively ascertaining the number out there. Don Blumenthal:Tim - count for what? :) Tim Ruiz:Count as privacy services. A lot of them register names for clients in their or their firms name. Mary Wong:Note also that when we use the word "Affiliated" in the context of the 2013 RAA, it's a specifically defined term. That's not always the case in other contexts, when using "affiliated" without the capital A. Tim Ruiz:Yeah, missed the smiley face. :-) Bladel:Mary: What is the distinction? Mary Wong:@James, I believe that "Affiliated" in this instance refers to entities that have a controlling relationship one to the other. That's more specific and narrow than "affiliated" which can be far broader and does not have a specific legal or technical meaning. Bladel:Ok, thanks. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:apologies, my internet connection failed. Mary Wong:The Nominet input to the Whois Review Team was posted to the WG wiki, under the documents for 4 March. Luc Seufer:@Marie-Laure, I have heard ICANN is not willing to pay Comcast an extra fee for all the bandwidth we are using ;-) Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC::) Tim Ruiz:We could require something similar passed through to the p/p provider. Volker Greimann:@Steve: For non-affiliated services, we send it to the registrant of record, i.e. the service provider Carlton Samuels:@Steve: In your scenario that verification is 2 layers down. Volker Greimann:sorry, there is another telco in the room, so I cannot talk :-( Bladel:But Volker, if you become aware that they are a privacy service (and not accredited) you'll have to take action against those names. Mary Wong:@Volker, @Steve - that would be the case for proxy registrations (as defined by ICANN), true? Volker Greimann:@james: not currently Volker Greimann:as there is no such program Carlton Samuels:I think it is burdensome. If the liability rests with the provider then verification is the responsibility of the provider. steve metalitz:apologies, I will have to drop off the call momentarily since another call time was changed due to daylight savings time Bladel:Once the program launches, the "hooks" are already in the RAA. Volker Greimann:I was referring to the current status Bladel:ok Volker Greimann:the new accreditation would have to oblige non-affiliated providers to perform identical verfication and validation Volker Greimann:if you need that for the underlying data Nathalie Peregrine:Todd Williams has joined the call Graeme Bunton:i think it's old Carlton Samuels:@Volker: Yes. And that is the case that should be considered. As I've said before make the requirement one for '[re]verified contact information' and be done. This applies regardless of the provenance of the service; Affiliated or non-Affiliated provider. No need to be more prescriptive as policy. Amr Elsadr:Verification and validation by non-affiliated service providers doesn't seem unreasonable. I suppose some registrants may choose to have different email addresses associated with their registrar and P/P provider (for example). I'm still not sure why any of this may be grounds for reverification. That isn't a requirement in the 2013 RAA, is it? Carlton Samuels:Implementation design and the details associated must remain with the implementation team Marika Konings:It is the registrar, not ICANN that sends the reminder, I believe Volker Greimann:@Kathy: We send out the data we have on file. So for our own privacy service, it is the underlying data, for unaffiliated services, it is the services data Luc Seufer:@Marika fortunately! Marika Konings::-) Graeme Bunton:Our approach matches what Volker is saying Volker Greimann:whether or not that is forwarded or not depends on how the service is set up Marika Konings:Would it be an option to require the P/P service to forward the Whois data reminder to the P/P customer and if that bounces, reverification is required? Mary Wong:@Amr, what is the "this" you're referring to? Amr Elsadr:I thought we were talking about the need for reverification of contact data in the whois. It seems we've moved on. Darcy Southwell:I suggest that any re-verification requirement be consistent with the Whois Accuracy Program Specification. Otherwise, registrars who also provide privacy/proxy services will have two different standards for re-verification. Graeme Bunton:That's an interesting point James Volker Greimann:Marika: I think that is not helpful, as we can only include data we have in our reminders Kathy Kleiman:Good point, James Carlton Samuels:@Volker: Precisely. This is why verification requirement rests with the p/p provider! Darcy Southwell:@Marika - If this is requirement, are you suggesting that if a P/P service doesn't already collect and follow up on bounces that it would have to build that functionality to continue as a P/P service? Kathy Kleiman:Do the customers have a way to check their data in a p/p service -- the ones I have seen do... Volker Greimann:Marika: I would not tie it to the registrar reminders, sinde some may be passed through automatically, while with other services it may not, depending how the provider handles the mail address in the contact deposited with the registrar Kathy Kleiman:but I don't know across the board? Luc Seufer:Silly question, but when the program will be established, how does a registrar know that a domain holder is using the services of a proxy service from a third party? (if the details are not Domain Proxy Inc. or something obvious)As registrar we will be bound to only allow registrants to use accredited p/p/ providers services, but what qualifies the service of an entity as a p/p/ service? Volker Greimann:Luc: Pragmatically. Positive knowledge only Luc Seufer:so in other words, never. Tim Ruiz:Luc, that's an implementation detail ;-) Volker Greimann:My take: They would be obliged to agree to verify and validate in their accreditation agreement with ICANN. Compliance and Noncompliance is a job for ICANN compliance then Luc Seufer:Okay so unless a Compliance rep. tells you that company XYZ is providing p/p services, you can't tell. Mary Wong:@Volker, is it your assumption that the P/P accreditation will be based on a binding contract between ICANN and the P/P service (similar to registrar accreditation)? Bladel:But if a Registrar becomes aware that an unaccredited P/P is registering domains through them, then the registrar (per the RAA) should take action against htose names. Libby Baney:@Don - before moving on, could we summarize the "closure" / concensus on where we landed on the prior issue? Thanks! Tim Ruiz:Another question will be what are registrars required to do if they discover registrations that are by non-accredited p/p service or is otherwise proxied? Tim Ruiz:@James, on the same wave length :-) Luc Seufer:but what's a non-accredited P/P? Any registrant without an ICANN P/P accreditation? Tim Ruiz:@James, or as I like to say, great minds think like I do. Libby Baney:Yeah, thanks Libby Baney:Just wanted to make sure I knew where we "were" Libby Baney::) Volker Greimann:of course, if we find out anyone operates any form of privacy services for third parties, such as lawyers, etc, we may be required to deactivate those domains if the firms are not accredited... Graeme Bunton:That's my understanding too, Volker Volker Greimann:Mary: In my book, that is what Accreditation means,, so yes! Luc Seufer:For example a law firm registering itself as registrant of a domain name they have recovered via UDRP for example, do they need to be accredited by ICANN to do so? Wouldn't we as registrar be in breach of the 2013 RAA by allowing such law firm to do so? Mary Wong:Thanks, Volker - I thought so but thought also it would be useful to clarify. Possibly other WG memebrs share the same view but I'm not sure this is a question the WG has discussed. Kathy Kleiman:I'm disconnected Volker Greimann:I am certainly not assuming that each registrar becomes an accreditation body, accrediting privacy services. This has to be centralized and at the centre, there is ICANN Kathy Kleiman:But yes, I thnk we need to look at the rights of registrants and these documents Marika mentioned Tim Ruiz:@Luc & Volker, laws regarding client/attorney privalege may come into play? Darcy Southwell:Luc's question is a good one - is the law firm acting as a P/P service or instead licenscing the domain to its clients? Volker Greimann:well, too bad, Tim ;-) Privacy service is privacy service Volker Greimann:Darcy: if it looks like a duck... Kathy Kleiman:I'll raise the points next meeting... Tim Ruiz:@Luc, I don't disagree in theory, but we do need policy that's enforceable. Volker Greimann:the nature of the internal contractual relationship between the parties cannot matter Darcy Southwell:Duck, yes. But I suspect some law firms would disagree. Volker Greimann:either the registrant of record is the beneficial owner, or he is not. In the latter case, the registrant of record is providing some form of privacy or proxy service and has to undergo the accreditation program Luc Seufer:@Tim, another conflict between ICANN policies and local laws: this time count me out! Volker Greimann:with all the obligations that entails Tim Ruiz:@Luc, the proble of course if there is an exception is that most p/p services will ultimately set up to fall into that exception. Kathy Kleiman:Tx All ! Graeme Bunton:thanks all Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thanks. Bye bye Libby Baney:Thanks! Tim Ruiz:Thanks Don and all! Osvaldo Novoa:By and thank you Luc Seufer:Bye

1 0

BC input to PPSAI WG
by Mary Wong March 10, 2014

March 10, 2014

Dear WG members, We have also received the following input from the Business Constituency: http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position%20PDP%20WG%20On%20Accr editation%20of%20Privacy%20and%20proxy%20services.pdf The general questions that the BC submits in its response follow from a short conversation I had with Steve Delbianco, the BC's Vice Chair for Policy Coordination. 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 * One World. One Internet. * From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:24 PM To: "Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] TR: IPC provisional responses to PPSAI WG > > > > De : Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] > Envoyé : lundi 10 mars 2014 15:37 > À : 'gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org' > Cc : Marika Konings; Mary Wong > Objet : IPC provisional responses to PPSAI WG > > > Dear Glen, > > > > Attached please find the provisional responses for the Intellectual Property > Constituency to the questionnaire from the Privacy and Proxy Services > Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group. Our responses to most of the questions > can be found in italics. Please let me know if there are any questions. > > > > Steve Metalitz, IPC VP > > > > > >

1 0

Agenda (and reminder about new time for US participants) for tomorrow
by Mary Wong March 10, 2014

March 10, 2014

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the PPSAI WG call tomorrow is as follows: 1. Roll Call/Update to SOIs 2. Review & Discussion of Sampling of P/P Providers' Terms of Service (see latest version, attached) 3. Continue Discussion on Category B Question 2 (see latest version incorporating most recent responses, attached) 4. Next Meeting/Planning for Singapore We will also post the two documents to the WG wiki before the call tomorrow. Please note also that, with respect to the Nominet study that has been raised in WG discussions, this has not been made publicly available. We have therefore posted (under last week's meeting) the document that Nominet sent to the Whois Review Team regarding its analysis of Whois information in the .uk domain, and their associated practices. Finally for US-based WG members PLEASE NOTE that with the end of daylight savings time in the US, the call tomorrow (and all calls through March for US-based participants ONLY) will take place ONE HOUR later than usual, I.e. 8 a.m. PDT/11 a.m. EDT. Please refer to Nathalie's email enclosing the call and Adobe Connect log in details for further information if you need it. 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 * One World. One Internet. *

1 0

TR: IPC provisional responses to PPSAI WG
by Glen de Saint Géry March 10, 2014

March 10, 2014

De : Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Envoyé : lundi 10 mars 2014 15:37 À : 'gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org' Cc : Marika Konings; Mary Wong Objet : IPC provisional responses to PPSAI WG Dear Glen, Attached please find the provisional responses for the Intellectual Property Constituency to the questionnaire from the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group. Our responses to most of the questions can be found in italics. Please let me know if there are any questions. Steve Metalitz, IPC VP

1 0

Follow-up question from yesterday's PPSAI WG Meeting
by Libby Baney March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

Volker, James, Graeme -- Thank you again for your presentations during yesterday's PPSAI WG meeting. As we consider accreditation standards for p/p service providers, it is very helpful to be reminded of the range of business models and practices in the p/p industry. At the risk of opening a "can of worms" with the following question, I'd greatly appreciate if Volker could share further insight into the following (note, I did ask in the chat but it seems we ran out of time to address it): Volker -- you noted that it is against your terms of service to use protected domains for commercial purposes. I can't help but wonder, what is your operating definition of "commercial" for purposes of enforcing this company policy? To other p/p service providers -- do any of you have a similar policy, and if so how do you distinguish commercial vs. non-commercial use? Thanks in advance for indulging my curiosity. Libby -- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com P: 202-499-2296

4 3

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

+1 to Kathy I recall seeing multiple studies stating exactly the same thing If you respect privacy then people will provide better quality data It's logical and obvious -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:46 PM To: Marika Konings; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2 Marika, Tx you for checking with Lesley! But the results of that study were shared with the Whois Review Team, so the idea that "it is doubtful if these claims could be independently audited or verified" is not true. It has been checked - in this field and many others. People have less incentive to mislead when they know their interests (including privacy) are protected. I'm happy to work with you on finding additional studies, and summaries of studies, but the opinion in the paper does need to be updated or removed. Tx, Kathy : Kathy, on the Nominet study, please note the information in the updated template for Cat B question 2 that was circulated last week. (see attached). I reached out to Lesley Cowley last week and she informed me that unfortunately the study is not publicly available. However, should there be any specific questions in relation to the data on opt-out, she would be do her best to try and assist. Best regards, Marika From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday 4 March 2014 14:23 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2 What Volker writes below makes sense to me, All. Provided the agreed upon 2013 RAA review of data has been done by someone, I don't see why we should duplicate it. The scope of our WG is p/p providers affiliated with registrars -- so coordination of the review of the data, per the ICANN rules, in conjunction with the Registrar makes perfect sense to me. As does a "no-privacy penalty." What we have found (Nominet and others -- BTW no one on staff reached out to me to help dig out this study, can we do that this week?) is that when people know their data is private and protected, it is more accurate. That makes sense and complies with government advice from all corners. Even the US Federal Trade Commission says not to give out your name and phone number in a way that is open and unprotected! So I think we are already headed towards more accurate data... Best, Kathy : Hi Steven, if we can limit that obligation to those cases where no validation of the underlying data has been performed by the registrar of record, we might be getting somewhere. An independent obligation that duplicates work already done will help no one and confuse many. Volker Am 03.03.2014 19:51, schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Thanks Volker. It is precisely because "the registrars obligation only extends to the registrant of record, not to anyone who may use the domain name with permission of that registrant," that there should be an independent obligation on the part of the p/p service provider to validate its customer's contact information. Steve. From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:32 AM To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2 Hi Steven, Even when this assertion is relevant, it may not be persuasive, for a number of reasons. For example, the Whois data reminder obligation applies to the registrant of record. In the case of a proxy service, the registrant or record is the service, not its customer. If a Whois data reminder is sent to a non-proxy registrant and bounces back, then the RAA requires the registrar to re-verify. But a data reminder sent to a proxy service will almost never bounce back, and therefore there may be no RAA obligation to re-verify. This is so even if the customer data provided to the service is inaccurate or outdated. In this circumstance it is up to the p/p service accreditation standards to specify the conditions under which customer data must be re-verified. This depends on how the service is set up. One could suggest that if such required messages from the registrar do not reach the registrant, it could become the providers' obligation to perform the information requirements on its own. The registrar could then rely on the provider to perform its duties under the accreditation agreement with ICANN just at it performs its own obligations under the RAA. Please also remember that the registrars obligation only extends to the registrant of record, not to anyone who may use the domain name with permission of that registrant. V. -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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. _______________________________________________ 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

9 13

For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
by Marika Konings March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

Dear All, Following our call yesterday, please find attached the updated templates for Category B questions 1 & 2. Please review these templates to make sure the WG discussions have been accurately reflected and feel free to share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. We've created a page on the wiki where we'll post the templates that have been finalised for now (noting that for some of these the WG will need to come back to the template at a later date), see https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg. The WG will continue its deliberations on Category B Question 2 next week. Some of the questions that came up during the conversation yesterday and which you are encouraged to share your views on (and/or add additional questions that need to be considered in this context) are: * What would be the arguments for not using the same standards / requirements for validation and verification as per the 2013 RAA? * Should there be a requirement for re-verification, and if so, what instances would trigger such re-verification? * In case of affliction between the P/P service and the registrar, if the registration information has already been verified by the registrar, should this exempt the P/P provider from doing so? * Should the same requirements apply to privacy and proxy services or is there a reason to distinguish between the two? Best regards, Marika

16 62

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow-up question from yesterday's PPSAI WG Meeting
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

Libby We wouldn't impose any restriction on legal use of a domain name in association with any service we provide. (We run a privacy service as well) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Libby Baney Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:23 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow-up question from yesterday's PPSAI WG Meeting Volker, James, Graeme -- Thank you again for your presentations during yesterday's PPSAI WG meeting. As we consider accreditation standards for p/p service providers, it is very helpful to be reminded of the range of business models and practices in the p/p industry. At the risk of opening a "can of worms" with the following question, I'd greatly appreciate if Volker could share further insight into the following (note, I did ask in the chat but it seems we ran out of time to address it): Volker -- you noted that it is against your terms of service to use protected domains for commercial purposes. I can't help but wonder, what is your operating definition of "commercial" for purposes of enforcing this company policy? To other p/p service providers -- do any of you have a similar policy, and if so how do you distinguish commercial vs. non-commercial use? Thanks in advance for indulging my curiosity. Libby -- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

1 0