April 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

The threshold question before Category C, Question 1
by Kathy Kleiman April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

Hi All, Here's the threshold question we agreed to discuss *before* entering into the specific issues of the area: _Threshold Question_: /Currently, proxy/privacy services are available to companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals. Should there be any change to this aspect of the current system in the new accreditation standards?/^^1 <#sdfootnote1sym> 1 <#sdfootnote1anc>^Several WG members noted that some questions in this Section are somewhat conditional, in that a Yes/No answer to one may obviate the need to answer others. The "use" of a domain for specific purposes may also implicate content questions. The WG agreed that these issues should be flagged for discussion when considering the WG's response to this Section. Best, Kathy

8 9

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 29, 2014

April 29, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140429-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar%23mar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr 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 Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tim Ruiz - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Libby Baney - BC Justin Macy - BC David Heasley - IPC Michele Neylon - RrSG Jennifer Standiford - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Tobias Sattler - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Christian Dawson - ISPCP Griffin Barnett - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Don Moody - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Laura Jedeed - BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Apologies: Gema Campillos - GAC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Don Blumenthal - RySG Roy Balleste - NCUC ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins 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 ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 29 April 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG meeting of 29 April 2014 Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Good morning. Mary Wong:Hello Sarah and everyone Graeme Bunton:Good morning all Nathalie Peregrine:Jennifer Standiford has joined the call Kathy K:Steve, I am still coming onto the phone... but what is the timeline for the subgroup on the technical subgroup? Nathalie Peregrine:tobias Sattler has joined the call Tobias Sattler:Sorry, for being late Mary Wong:@Kathy, in response to your email request on the list, we've included the Threshojld Question for Category C in the Notes pod (on the right side of your screen). Hope this helps! Bladel:Or maybe we decided to have the group, but were still working on its mission? Luc Seufer:So first we assemble the avengers and then we find them a mission? Mary Wong:@James, I don't believe the WG agreed to it definitively, though we got a few volunteers should one be formed. Nathalie Peregrine:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined the audio bridge Mary Wong:The wording on the preliminary conclusion in this part is based on the WG discussion and AC chat from last week. Bladel:I'll defer to Kathy on this point. Bladel:Her memory is better than mine. :) Michele Neylon:more IRTPs? Michele Neylon:NO NO Michele Neylon:NO NO Michele Neylon::) Luc Seufer:not sure you'll get an athos with that behavior :-p Luc Seufer:ethos rather Mary Wong:Link to AC chat from last week: https://community.icann.org/x/kzvRAg Mary Wong:Excerpt: steve metalitz:I am open to making this an accreditation requirement IF there is a practical way to do it. The purpose of the subgroup would be to answer whether it is practical. steve metalitz:"This" = enabling transfer without losing p/p protection. Kathy K:Agree with Steve! Paul McGrady:Agree with Steve and Kathy Amr Elsadr:Also agree with Steve. Val Sherman:+1 @Steve Kathy K:+1 James - ID the hurdles, suggest Kathy K:ways forward, IRTP out of bounds Nathalie Peregrine:Val Shearman has joined the call Bladel:(dont say charter dont say charter). Bladel::) Kathy K:Sure Bladel:Yes Kathy K:agreed Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Volker Greimann has joined the call Bladel:Private Transfer? Michele Neylon:+1 to James Michele Neylon:audio gone for me Kathy K:It was the IPC that provided us with the legitimate purposes for proxy/privacy services for commercial entities Michele Neylon:thoguh that could be my wifi Libby Baney:+1 to Kiran Bladel:Most major banks also use these services. Michele Neylon:conflating p/p with fake pharma is like yelling "think of the children" Justin Macy:+1 Kiran Michele Neylon:and is a massive red herring Kiran Malancharuvil:and what's wrong with thinking of the children Michele? Kathy K:That's what I remember too - that the banks used proxy/privacy Michele Neylon:Kiran - seriously? Kiran Malancharuvil:Yes seriously. There are a LOT of people who die from counterfeit pharma sales online every year. Ignoring it is kind of despicable. Michele Neylon:It's got nothing to do with P/P Michele Neylon:+1 to Tim Kiran Malancharuvil:haha, okay Michele. Luc Seufer:Wow since when a domain name can host content? Luc Seufer:+1 Tim Michele Neylon:+1 to Tim again Michele Neylon:my mother doesn't know what whois is Michele Neylon:why the hell should she? Bladel:In fact, we conducted an experiment on this in the WHOIS review team. Most usesr go to the 'About Us" page, not much awareness of WHOIS. Graeme Bunton:no ones mother knows what WHOS is Kiran Malancharuvil:People in the consumer protection game use WHOIS, is your mother in consumer protection? Luc Seufer:We should make a t-shirt out of that one Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm a mother and I know what WHOIS is. Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:My mother knows how to do a whois Michele Neylon:Luc - oh :) Kiran Malancharuvil:Don't be disrespectful of women by making these stupid comments about "mothers." Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:+1 Kiran Kathy K:lost connection... please move forward with queue Nathalie Peregrine:Kathy, you're still showing as connected on the bdirge Nathalie Peregrine:would you like a dial ouy?> Luc Seufer:I can't speak for the rest of the world but in the EU, entities willing to do businesses have the obligation to display their contact details on their website, not in the whois Libby Baney:Isn't it easier to lie on the face of a website (e.g. in the About Us) than it is supposed to be in the WHOIS data? Kiran Malancharuvil:Yes Libby. Whois, with it's new verification requirements would be much safer Luc Seufer:which is based on policy Luc Seufer:the website req. is based on legal obligation. Hoster will have to suspend their services if the details are inacurrate. (speaking of the EU) Kiran Malancharuvil:So is that content regulation then Luc? Kathy K:still on hold Tim Ruiz:Agree with Steve about not making it a requirement to accept commercial customers as a p/p provider. Luc Seufer:@Kiran , yes sort of. Libby Baney:@kiran, yes - thanks. So transparent WHOIS data for commercial activities would then be another data point for consumers to check, possiblly in additon to the About Us info on the face of a website Kiran Malancharuvil:That seems more complicated than verifying Whois data Kiran Malancharuvil:All of the questions James is raising are worth discussion Mary Wong:Since the Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study was referenced, just a note that the researchers found a higher-than-average rate of P/P use for illegal activities, but that among legal users there was also a fairly high percentage of use among several such type of legal entities (viz. banks and adult websites). Graeme Bunton:+1 James Kathy K:back online Mary Wong:Note also that the researchers did not distinguish btwn commercial or non-commercial, entity or individual users - the legal uses were chosen to "mirror" the illegal categories of activities they were studying. Libby Baney:A number of issues/questions were just raised; I hope we get to address each in turn Tim Ruiz:What would we be trying to accomplish by denying "commercial" users or creating other types of categories? Given the difficulties it would create with verifying who is and isn't a particular category, enforcement, etc., doesn't it make more sense to discuss what we want from it and then see if there isn't a better way to get there, such as in reveal? Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm not sure that B2B providers are expempt from business licensing, which is public . Michele Neylon:FYI - the US is NOT the World Michele Neylon:#justsaying Graeme Bunton:good points Kathy Libby Baney:@Kathy - seems we could make the distinction between comm/non-comm activities, not "entities" -- for the reasons you just note re e.g. 501(c)(3) Kiran Malancharuvil:There are licensing requirements in the EU Tim Ruiz:@Michele +1 Michele Neylon:Kiran - not in all countries and not for all types of business Michele Neylon:please don't preach to me about my own jurisdiction :) Kiran Malancharuvil:I am well aware. I have two of my higher degrees from the EU. Kiran Malancharuvil:Don't assume that because I'm american I have a centric approach. Kathy K:Marketplace of ideas vs. marketplace of goods and services - many organizations, foundations and groups are dedicated to ideas, not goods and services Bladel:Lets do thist. Michele Neylon:rat holes are great Bladel:First accredited PP servcie will come online in 2020. Michele Neylon:But I don't get paid to do PDPs Michele Neylon:so I'll have left by then Kathy K:Why - good question, Tim Bladel:I vote for the rat hole. Status quo will be maintained until I retire. Bladel::) Michele Neylon:+1 James :) Luc Seufer:hum.. how long do we have? 5+ years? :-P Libby Baney:@Tim - good point. I'd say this issue is highly important for us to strike the right balance between transparency and privacy Volker Greimann:can we do a rabbit hole instead? they are bigger Tim Ruiz:You call the rat hole rhetoric, and make the rat hole even bigger with your comment. Kathy K:I think we should discuss the threshold question at the beginnin gof next week - with a larger group Tim Ruiz:Agree with Kathy Bladel:+1 Kathy. Tim Ruiz:@volker, rabbit hole it is. I like the association with Wonderland. ;-) Luc Seufer:2 hour pres. should be sufficient Kathy K:Prefer not to move ahead -- talk next meeting? Tim Ruiz:I would prefer to dicuss this next week again first. Tim Ruiz:@Kathy, Agree. Kiran Malancharuvil:THanks Darcy Southwell:Thanks Luc Seufer:Thanks Phil Marano:Thank you!

1 0

threshold question on classes of proxy/privacy services
by Kathy Kleiman April 29, 2014

April 29, 2014

Before we reach Category C, Question 1, could Staff find the "threshold question" that we adopted -- about whether classes or categories of proxy/privacy customers was wanted or appropriate for the gTLD proxy/privacy services. This is the first question we need to address. Tx! Kathy

1 0

Proposed Agenda for WG meeting on Tuesday 29 April
by Mary Wong April 28, 2014

April 28, 2014

Dear all, Following up on the discussions last week and the latest template (see below), we anticipate that the agenda for the meeting tomorrow (or later today, if you are located in the Asia Pacific region!) will be as follows: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Finalization of preliminary conclusions for Category B, Question 3 3. Begin deliberations on Category C, Question 1 (uploaded to WG wiki; see email below) 4. Next Steps & Planning for London 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: Friday, April 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Updated template for Cat B Q 3 > Dear all, > > Please find attached the updated template for Category B Question 3 for your > review. Based on the call earlier this week, we¹ve added to the Preliminary > Conclusion columns (including pasting in the ³side questions² for recordation > purposes). We also added a couple of notes on the discussion in the WG > Deliberations column just above it, including the possibility of there being a > sub-group at some point. > > For the Tuesday meeting, we will likely be moving on to begin deliberations on > Category C Question 1, for which the initial draft template has already been > uploaded to the WG wiki page (as has the attached Cat B Q 3 document): > https://community.icann.org/x/h0TRAg > > 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

Updated template for Cat B Q 3
by Mary Wong April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached the updated template for Category B Question 3 for your review. Based on the call earlier this week, we¹ve added to the Preliminary Conclusion columns (including pasting in the ³side questions² for recordation purposes). We also added a couple of notes on the discussion in the WG Deliberations column just above it, including the possibility of there being a sub-group at some point. For the Tuesday meeting, we will likely be moving on to begin deliberations on Category C Question 1, for which the initial draft template has already been uploaded to the WG wiki page (as has the attached Cat B Q 3 document): https://community.icann.org/x/h0TRAg 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

Who has signed RAAs
by Don Blumenthal April 23, 2014

April 23, 2014

Questions have come up a few times related to the adoption of the 2013 agreement. This page has a list of accredited registrars with a lot of information including which RAA each comes under. To give credit, it’s courtesy of Carlos Alvarez from ICANN Security, formerly Compliance, who sent it to me for reasons unrelated to the WG. http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html Don

2 2

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 22 April 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 22 April 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140422-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140422-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar%23mar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr 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 Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tim Ruiz - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Libby Baney - BC Susan Prosser - RrSG Justin Macy - BC Jim Bikoff - IPC David Heasley - IPC Michele Neylon - RrSG Jennifer Standiford - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Tobias Sattler - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Christain Dawson - ISPCP Don Blumenthal - RySG Griffin Barnett - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Maria Farrell - NCUC Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Todd Williams - IPC Don Moody - IPC Michael Palage - RySG Alex Deacon - IPC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Apologies: Gema Campillos - GAC Kristina Rosette - IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Joe Catapano 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 22 April 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 22 April 2014 Amr Elsadr:Yes. Hello. Graeme Bunton:G'mornin all Bladel:g'mornin' y'all Michele Neylon:Getting more coffee Michele Neylon:but listening Alex Deacon:Good morning. Terri Agnew:Tim Ruiz has joined audio Tim Ruiz:I am now also on adobe. Terri Agnew:Jennifer standiford has joined Jennifer Standiford:good morning Bladel:More of a notification at this point. :) Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined Terri Agnew:Volker Greimann has joined Volker Greimann:sorry for my lateness Kathy K:we're not looking for perfect - just good, workable and hopefully as automated as easy as possible Volker Greimann:Tim: I'd put them in the "nice to have" category Darcy Southwell:One concern I have with this idea is that, if the transfer fails, we now have our privacy service information listed without any connection to a P/P customer that we have. Tim Ruiz:@Volker, right. Bladel:Agree with Tim. IF you suppor this, here are some uniform standards. But agree we shouldn't require feature sets. Terri Agnew:Maria Farrell has joined Volker Greimann:I would see it as a recommendation according to these lines: "To enable privacy protection during transfers, the gaining/losing registrar may...." Bladel:I think we should address Steve's first point: Is this a matter of policy or product development/innovation? Paul McGrady:I would be happy to be in that offline subgroup if everyone decides we should have one Terri Agnew:Marie-Laure Lemineur has joined Volker Greimann:that way we could implement policy excemptions to transfer policies, RAA requirements, etc. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:Apologies for the being late steve metalitz:I am open to making this an accreditation requirement IF there is a practical way to do it. The purpose of the subgroup would be to answer whether it is practical. steve metalitz:"This" = enabling transfer without losing p/p protection. Kathy K:Agree with Steve! Paul McGrady:Agree with Steve and Kathy Amr Elsadr:Also agree with Steve. Val Sherman:+1 @Steve Tim Ruiz:Could we not just say that all notices required via RAA or Policy by ICANN should be relayed? Darcy Southwell:Agree with Steve, Kathy, and Tim. Kathy K:If the Kathy K:Registrant has the AuthInfo code, does that help? Kathy K:Is there an AuthInfo code for the Redemption Grace Period? Michele Neylon:You can't transfer during redemption Kathy K:+1 Tim - and tx you! Kathy K:Michele, tx for clarification. Kathy K:Understand Tim Ruiz:Conditions under which a p/p would terminate its service should be REQUIRED to be communicated to the beneficial user. But providing for non-diclosure of their data if transfering should only be suggested, or at most a best practice recommendation. Kathy K:Interesting, can we factor in Tim's information? Kathy K:In this case too, it seems there is no reason to disclose the underlying personal data of the Registrant Michele Neylon:I'll shove my comment in the chat Michele Neylon:Can you force me to do business with someone? Michele Neylon:We're a private company Michele Neylon:We could say that we don't support a particular type of software Michele Neylon:0h wait - we do that already :) Bladel:correct. Kathy K:+1 to Steve's suggestion for a subgroup on Transfers. I volunteer. Tim Ruiz:No objection to "small" group looking at the transfer issues as a whole, but will it be small? Bladel:I agree Michele. Then that takes "mandatory" privacy/proxy service transfers off the table. Tim Ruiz:Don't we require registries to deal with all registrars except under certain specific situations. Michele Neylon:Thankfully KS is a reseller / wholesaler so they have experience Michele Neylon:Tim - they have to abuse us all equally Tim Ruiz:Exactly. So should we not have to abuse all accredited p/p services equally. Paul McGrady:Great call! Thanks everyone. Kathy K:Great, tx Don and All! Michele Neylon:We don't have to offer all TLDs Phil Marano:Thank you. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thank you Don Mary Wong:Thanks everyone. Michele Neylon:But it's an interesting question .. Michele Neylon:*gone* Tobias Sattler:Bye

1 0

last transfer thoughts
by Kathy Kleiman April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014

Hi All, I wanted to point out two other transfer scenarios where not publishing the Whois information of a proxy/privacy customer makes sense and seems fair: 1) I decide to transfer all my domain names to Blacknight from a US Registrar and its affiliated proxy/privacy service. In doing so, I sign up at transfer for Blacknight's proxy/privacy service. Why shouldn't my personal data be protected in that transfer -- with the Whois shifting from one proxy/privacy service provider to another, both with my underlying personal data? 2) My Registrar loses its accreditation and all domain names are transferred to Tucows. I sign up right away for Tucows privacy service. Why should my personal data be published in this already-difficult situation? Why should potentially thousands or even millions of registrants lose their privacy? Best and tx, Kathy

3 3

Proposed Agenda for WG meeting on Tuesday 22 April
by Mary Wong April 21, 2014

April 21, 2014

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Continue discussion of template for Category B Question 3 (including "side questions" pertaining to renewals and transfers) 3. (if time permits) Begin deliberations on template for Category C Question 1 4. Next Steps/Next Meeting Please note that the WG wiki page has been updated with the latest draft templates as well as the ³side questions² on renewals and transfers (also included in the prior message, below). In addition, we have added links to the ERRP and IRTP, and to the GNSO¹s working pages on the latter: https://community.icann.org/x/kzvRAg 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: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 10:32 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Updated Cat B Question 3 Template for further discussion and review > Dear all, > > Attached is a revised version of the draft template for Category B Question 3, > including a comment/question from our WG Chair. The Chairs expect next week's > discussion (22 April) to focus largely on further discussions regarding this > question and template, including the additional questions relating > specifically to renewals and transfers as posted to the Notes pod in the Adobe > Connect room from the meeting earlier this week. > > For your convenience, here are the questions: > 1. 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? > 2. 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? > 3. 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. > 4. In relation to the IRTP, should there be any restrictions concerning > transfers of P/P registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and conditions > required for 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? > If it will help facilitate WG deliberations on Tuesday, please feel free to > send initial thoughts and responses to this mailing list prior to the next > call. > > 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. *

2 2

Updated Cat B Question 3 Template for further discussion and review
by Mary Wong April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Dear all, Attached is a revised version of the draft template for Category B Question 3, including a comment/question from our WG Chair. The Chairs expect next week's discussion (22 April) to focus largely on further discussions regarding this question and template, including the additional questions relating specifically to renewals and transfers as posted to the Notes pod in the Adobe Connect room from the meeting earlier this week. For your convenience, here are the questions: 1. 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? 2. 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? 3. 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. 4. In relation to the IRTP, should there be any restrictions concerning transfers of P/P registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and conditions required for 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? If it will help facilitate WG deliberations on Tuesday, please feel free to send initial thoughts and responses to this mailing list prior to the next call. 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