June 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Terri Agnew July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

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 3 July at 20.00 UTC Thursday 7 August at 12.00 UTC Thursday 4 September at 20.00 UTC Thursday 2 October at 12.00 UTC 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> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html. If you are interested to join the next meeting on 3 July 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 & Terri Agnew GNSO Secretariat

2 1

ISPCP PPSAI WG Survey Response
by Marika Konings June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the input from the ISPCP question as referred to in the meeting. We'll also get this posted on the wiki with the other statements received. Best regards, Marika On 24/06/14 10:20, "Christian Dawson" <dawson(a)servint.com> wrote: >Mary, here is the ISPCP response, thank you: > > > >Survey response of the ISPCP Constituency: > >The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate >Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related >services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an >essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service >Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively >respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP >Working Group Community Questions for London. > >We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally >that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do >not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address >this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require >categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore >file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency: > >Category C Question 1: No. >Category C Question 2: No. > > > > >

1 0

Slides used for the WG F2F meeting in London
by Mary Wong June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Hi all, Attached are the slides that Don used today for the WG F2F session in London; they are substantially similar to what was used for the update to the GNSO over the weekend. 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

Category D, Question 4
by Kathy Kleiman June 19, 2014

June 19, 2014

Hi All, Before we all depart and move on to other issues, and in summary of our recent discussion, how about this for a tentative conclusion to D,4: To facilitate report, the WG is exploring a standardized set of information requests, and also space for free form text as well as additional information that may be needed or requested by proxy/privacy service providers. It was also suggested that providers have the ability to “categorize” reports received, in order to facilitate responsiveness. Best, Kathy

1 0

Complaint systems
by Don Blumenthal June 19, 2014

June 19, 2014

Peter Cassidy from the APWG said it’s OK to share their screens. He even sent me sample files to make it easier, so you know he doesn’t mind. :) The AMDoS Attestation page is the data entry screen and the Registry View is what I would see after being notified that an Attestor, complainant in our setting, has submitted a problem report. AMDoS has only just come out of beta and is limited to registries that have agreed to participate. However, Peter has some thoughts about expanding it. I have been part of developing the system since its early days and am happy to answer any questions about it. Don

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - updated template Cat D - Q4
by Don Blumenthal June 19, 2014

June 19, 2014

I shortened the description but didn’t make substantive changes. The WG recommends that the requirements concerning forms of alleged malicious conduct that would be covered by a providers's designated published point of contact should include a list of forms of conduct that would need to be covered. At the same time these requirements should allow for the flexibility to accommodate new types of malicious conduct. Section 3 of the Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specification in the New gTLD Registry Agreement[1] or Safeguard 2, Annex 1 of the GAC’s Beijing Communique[2] could serve as examples for how this could be achieved. Furthermore, the WG recommends standardizing reporting forms, which would nonetheless continue to include space for free form text. A starting point for such a form could be that used under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States. At a minimum such a form should include: [to be completed]. It was also suggested that providers have the ability to “categorize” reports received, in order to facilitate responsiveness. ________________________________ [1] Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. [2] Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. =================== From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 10:09 AM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - updated template Cat D - Q4 Dear All, Following yesterday's meeting, please find attached the updated template for Cat D – Q 4 attached for your review. Based on our discussions, the proposed preliminary recommendation has been updated as follows: =============== The WG recommends that the requirements in relation to which forms of alleged malicious conduct would be covered by the designated published point of contact at an ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service provider include an indicative list of forms of malicious conduct that would need to be covered while at the same time these requirements should allow for enough flexibility to accommodate new types of malicious conduct being covered. Section 3 of the Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specification in the New gTLD Registry Agreement[1] or Safeguard 2, Annex 1 of the GAC’s Beijing Communique[2] could serve as examples for how this could be achieved. Furthermore, the WG recommends standardizing reporting forms, which would nonetheless continue to include space for free form text. A starting point for such a form could be that used under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States. At a minimum such a form should include: [to be completed]. It was also suggested that providers have the ability to “categorize” reports received, in order to facilitate responsiveness. ________________________________ [1] Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. [2] Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. =================== You are encouraged to share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika

4 4

Document for Community Discussion (re WG F2F meeting at ICANN-50 in London)
by Mary Wong June 19, 2014

June 19, 2014

Hello again everyone, As no further comments have been received on the WG Preliminary Conclusions and Community Questions document discussed on the call this past Tuesday, we have in the interests of time uploaded the original document to the ICANN meeting website and the WG wiki. For your convenience, it is also attached to this email. Safe travels to all coming to attend ICANN-50 in person, and we look forward to ³seeing² those that will be joining us via remote participation online! 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 9:56 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda for WG F2F meeting at ICANN-50 in London > Dear all, > > The proposed agenda for the WG F2F meeting/community session scheduled for > Wednesday 25 June from 10.00-11.30 a.m. London time in the Cadogan Room is as > follows: > 1. Introduction of WG & members up to 10 minutes > 2. Summary of work so far 5 minutes > 3. Community feedback on WG preliminary conclusions - 50 minutes > 4. Open discussion 20 minutes > 5. Discuss next steps 5 minutes > We will circulate a final version of the Community Questions document > incorporating any suggestions sent in following the call this past Tuesday as > soon as possible, and it will also be posted to the WG wiki. > > If you are interested, Don¹s update to the GNSO on our work will take place on > Saturday 21 June from 17:45-18:15 London time, in the Sovereign Room. > > Please refer to the ICANN-50 London meeting schedule for remote participation > details if you will not be joining the meeting in person: > http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working (Saturday) and > http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ppsai (Wednesday). > > Thanks and cheers > Mary >

1 0

Agenda for WG F2F meeting at ICANN-50 in London
by Mary Wong June 18, 2014

June 18, 2014

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the WG F2F meeting/community session scheduled for Wednesday 25 June from 10.00-11.30 a.m. London time in the Cadogan Room is as follows: 1. Introduction of WG & members up to 10 minutes 2. Summary of work so far 5 minutes 3. Community feedback on WG preliminary conclusions - 50 minutes 4. Open discussion 20 minutes 5. Discuss next steps 5 minutes We will circulate a final version of the Community Questions document incorporating any suggestions sent in following the call this past Tuesday as soon as possible, and it will also be posted to the WG wiki. If you are interested, Don¹s update to the GNSO on our work will take place on Saturday 21 June from 17:45-18:15 London time, in the Sovereign Room. Please refer to the ICANN-50 London meeting schedule for remote participation details if you will not be joining the meeting in person: http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working (Saturday) and http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ppsai (Wednesday). Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

For your review - updated template Cat D - Q4
by Marika Konings June 18, 2014

June 18, 2014

Dear All, Following yesterday's meeting, please find attached the updated template for Cat D Q 4 attached for your review. Based on our discussions, the proposed preliminary recommendation has been updated as follows: =============== The WG recommends that the requirements in relation to which forms of alleged malicious conduct would be covered by the designated published point of contact at an ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service provider include an indicative list of forms of malicious conduct that would need to be covered while at the same time these requirements should allow for enough flexibility to accommodate new types of malicious conduct being covered. Section 3 of the Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specification in the New gTLD Registry Agreement[1] <#_ftn1> or Safeguard 2, Annex 1 of the GAC¹s Beijing Communique[2] <#_ftn2> could serve as examples for how this could be achieved. Furthermore, the WG recommends standardizing reporting forms, which would nonetheless continue to include space for free form text. A starting point for such a form could be that used under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States. At a minimum such a form should include: [to be completed]. It was also suggested that providers have the ability to ³categorize² reports received, in order to facilitate responsiveness. [1] <#_ftnref1> Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. [2] <#_ftnref2> Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. =================== You are encouraged to share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Questions 2 and 3, Category D
by Kathy Kleiman June 18, 2014

June 18, 2014

Hi All, The Background information to Category D, Questions 2 and *3, does not seem to reflect the fairly starting conclusion that arose from it, that truly legitimate business use proxy/privacy in high levels, including banks. * *So a few quick edits to Questions 2 and 3 (with two discussed by way of example). And also a correction to the study link that links to the call for the study, and that I have revised to be the study itself...* * Edits in caps... * *Best, Kathy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * Background information relevant to this question:* *Information from the Whois Studies* *_Whois Privacy and Proxy Services Abuse Study_ <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm>*[*LINK TO REPORT AT https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-pp-abuse-study-2013-09-24-en]*- Our study shows that it IS TRUE that: "A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity". Our study shows that it is PARTLY TRUE that: "The percentage of domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities that are registered via privacy or proxy services is significantly greater than the percentage of domain names used for lawful Internet activities that employ privacy or proxy services." OUR STUDY ALSO SHOWS THAT IS IS TRUE THAT: BANKS WHO HAVE NOT MALICIOUSLY REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES HAVE A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE RATE OF USE OF PROXY/PRIVACY REGISTRATION. STUDY LIMITATIONS: THE STUDY NOTES; "it is important to understandthat the selection we have made is not necessarily representative of the overall usage of domain names for lawful and harmless reasons." More helpfully, we can say: "When domain names are registered with the intent of conducting illegal or harmful Internet activities then a range of different methods are used to avoid providing viable contact information -- with a consistent outcome no matter which method is used. However, although many more domains registered for entirely lawful Internet activities have viable telephone contact information recorded within the Whois system, a great percentage of them do not." --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

2 1