June 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 17 June 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 17 June 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140617-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140617-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june 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 Justin Macy – BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Chris Pelling – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Darcy Southwell - RrSG Graeme Bunton – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Phil Marano – IPC Susan Prosser- RrSG Val Sherman – IPC Tim Ruiz – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG Libby Baney – BC Susan Kawguchi – BC Volker Greimann – RrSG Kathy Kleiman – NCUC Holly Raiche – ALAC Alex Deacon – IPC Tobias Sattler – RrSG Todd Williams – IPC Luc Seufer – RrSG David Cake – NCSG Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Apologies: Christian Dawson – ISPCP Michele Neylon – RrSG Jennifer Standiford – RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Amy Bivins 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 17 June 2014: Marika Konings: Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 17 June 2014 Osvaldo Novoa: Hello all Chris Pelling: afternoon all Tim Ruiz: can't here anything yet Don Blumenthal: Can you hear me? Terri Agnew: No we cant Don Holly Raiche: No Kathy? Terri Agnew: Kathy just joined Kathy: I'm on! Kathy: Hi All! Kathy: Hi Holly! Kathy: Don can we go back and look at D, 2 and 3 briefly too? Kathy: tx! Holly Raiche: Hi - and see you in London steve metalitz: Suggest we handle edits to background information on list. Terri Agnew: Stephanie Perrin has joined Kathy: Adding the following text: Kathy: OUR STUDY ALSO SHOWS THAT IS IS TURE THAT: BANKS WHO HAVE NOT MAILICIOUSLY REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES HAVE A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE RATE OF USE OF PROXY/PRIVACY REGISTRATION. STUDY LIMITIONS: THE STUDY NOTES; “it is important to understandthat the selection we have made is not necessarily representative of the overall usage ofdomain names for lawful and harmless reasons.” Kathy: tx... Kathy: Can someone please summarirze for those of us who missed the discussion? Marika Konings: @Kathy - please see the WG response / discussion which summarizes last week's meeting Marika Konings: WG responde / discussion column (sorry, forgot the last word) David Cake: It is certainly true that people invent new forms of malicious conduct all the time. Terri Agnew: Phil Marano has joined Stephanie Perrin: "without restricting the generality of the foregoing" usually works...with illustrative examples. Holly Raiche: gree - I think the Whois Study gives some examples we could use Luc Seufer: is malicious really appropriate? Shouldn't it read illegal or alledgedly so? steve metalitz: Here we are talking about reports, i.e., allegations that are within the scope of what the abuse contact needs to handle. Holly Raiche: @ Luc - there can be some behaviours that may be malicious, but not necessarily illegal in some jurisdictions Luc Seufer: Thank Holly. That's why I thought, I don't like the idea of puting technical intermediary in the judge seat. steve metalitz: @Kathy, your question will be discussed under "reveal." This question is about what would be covered by abuse contact. Luc Seufer: Either something has been judged illegal or is blatnatly illegal (under the law of the p/p provider) and they need to act. Or they don't. Chris Pelling: and agaim this comes does to where the P/P is located Kathy: Interesting, tx Holly Todd Williams: I may be missing something, but I don't see how the WG Preliminary Conclusion for D4 answers the question. The question seems to be about what types of conduct would be covered by the point of contact, but then the answer talks about what kind of standardized reporting form to use. Holly Raiche: I think there are two kinds of response: one by LEA for which the abuse point of contact would be used, and the other is other types of conduct steve metalitz: NO Don we also need an indicative list,but open-ended. . Libby Baney: @Luc regarding the applicable laws, in some cases it may be true that the relevant law is where the p/p is located, but in instances for example of online sales of medicines the laws where the patient/consumer is located are also applicable Marika Konings: @Todd - the preliminary conclusion is only one part based on the conversation last week. Todd Williams: Thanks Marika Tim Ruiz: ...or other forms of malicious contact that may yet be identified by ICANN Policy... steve metalitz: @Kathy again, that is an issue for when a reveal or relay would be needed, not relevant to coverage. Kathy: @Steve, this seems to be our "reporting" question Kathy: I think the preliminary conclusion is one of conduct and not reporting mechanisms... Kathy: IMHO Chris Pelling: @Libby, sorry but this still comes down to the location of the P/P provider, it is at the discretion of the P/P provider if they feel the service is being abused by any other law Volker Greimann: @steve: Even revealing the identity to one person violates the privacy of the customer Chris Pelling: totally correct @Volker Justin Macy: @Chris, I think the problem is when a law is in place to prevent a particular behavior in almost every jurisdiction and the registrant intentionally limits its activities to every jurisdiction, but the p/p providers. steve metalitz: @Volker, this is why standards for reveal are important Chris Pelling: @Justin, then sorry, but it is up to the PP provider whether/how they deal with it Chris Pelling: some laws in the US and not law is the EU, and vice versa steve metalitz: Support Don's proposals for London agenda. Will need to drop off this call shortly. See many of you in London! Graeme Bunton: Thanks Steve Chris Pelling: safe trip Steve Marika Konings: Yes, definitely Kathy: Not huge numbers of handouts, but enough for people to read across the audience.... perhaps Volker Greimann: I have no problem with revealing to LEAs of competent authority. Volker Greimann: Anything beyond that will need extreme justification Justin Macy: @Chris, jurisdictional legality isn't the only consideration in this. See spam, which isn't illegal in a number of jurisdictions. Libby Baney: @Chris - the good news is that this group, by adopting good policies on the issue of malicious activity, relay/reveal, can address malicious activity Libby Baney: @justin - right Luc Seufer: @Justin as long as spammers only spam internet users in their jurisdiction where spamming is legal Luc Seufer: ;-) Justin Macy: @Luc, correct. :) Chris Pelling: @Justin, agree, but it will never be stopped I am sorry to say, and it certanly wont make difference with regards the PP service, that comes down to going after the mail server Graeme Bunton: i think we're all gearing up for travel Kathy: Tx Don! Chris Pelling: and the IP of the mail server is always open to show Kathy: Safe travels, All Chris Pelling: @libby again down to the discresion of the PP provider and their jurisdiction Chris Pelling: thanks Don Chris Pelling: Sage travels all Chris Pelling: Safe * Holly Raiche: safe travels Luc Seufer: Gratitude Don

1 0

For review - PPSAI Community Questions
by Marika Konings June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

Dear All, As discussed during today's meeting, please send any comments / edits you may have on the attached document which is to be used to facilitate the F2F discussions in London and encourage community input by 20.00 UTC on Wednesday 18 June. Following that, we'll post it on the page linked to the meeting schedule. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Agenda for 17 June WG call
by Mary Wong June 16, 2014

June 16, 2014

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 17 June: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOIs 2. Conclude discussions on D-4 (last draft sent on 12 June) 3. Chairs¹ presentation/suggestions for WG face-to-face meeting agenda in London (see attached) 4. Next steps With regard to Agenda Item #3, the attached document was prepared at the Chairs¹ request and shows all the WG¹s preliminary conclusions on the various Charter questions to date (up to D-3; we will add D-4 after the next meeting), with several explanatory footnotes to set the context and explain certain category questions/discussions. The document also includes one or more suggested questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, relating to each preliminary conclusion; these were based on WG deliberations and any open questions remaining for each question. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

LE/Ops Sec community input- section 3.18 2013 RAA
by Marika Konings June 16, 2014

June 16, 2014

Dear All, As requested a couple of meetings ago, please find below some feedback received from our Security Stability Resiliency Team colleagues from the LE/Ops Sec community in relation to section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA which is being reviewed by the WG in the context of question D-2. Best regards, Marika ____________________________ For domains that are tied to malware or tied directly to brand mis-use associated with malicious or criminal activity, almost all registrars have no problem suspending the domains via Section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA. LE agencies have difficulty only with a handful of registrars. There are cases in which some registrars provide a standard response back to the agencies to the effect that they should contact the hosting provider since the registrar does "not have the ability to oversee what data are being transmitted through its site". If the hosting provider stops providing its services, the criminals can simply move to a new hosting provider. Suspending the domain itself has value for the LE agencies for several reasons, not least of which some providers unmask the private Whois information when the domain is suspended. Agencies encounter p/p domains used for malicious or criminal activity in ranges that go from small batches (i.e., associated with scams where fraudsters target hundreds or thousands of investors or phishing victims and generate millions in losses, however only a few domains are created) to large numbers where thousands of users are victimized in several countries. Making the privacy/proxy services accountable with a provision similar to 3.18 of the 2013 RAA would add another layer of protection to help contain and mitigate the harm caused to consumers on a global scale. It¹s a consumer protection issue, however any such new obligation to make p/p providers accountable with regards to abuse and reports of abuse, should not, in any way whatsoever, dilute contractually or in practice the registrars¹ obligations as they are currently provided by 3.18. If an agency presents to a registrar or p/p provider evidence that there is criminal or malicious activity that is harming users or has the potential to harm users (such as spamming, spreading malware or distributing child abuse material), the registrar or p/p provider should suspend that domain and unmask the Whois. The agencies are not requesting subscriber information. The agencies are reporting abuse of the DNS that implies violations of the registration agreement between the registrars and the registrants, and that also imply violations of the agreement between the p/p providers and their customers (including all cases of criminal and malicious activity as well as those cases in which the LE agencies¹ own brands are used by criminals in association with criminal or malicious activity). The burden should not be higher on the agencies than it was on the registrant to register the domain (e.g., obtaining a court order to have a domain suspended). Since the victims are located in several different countries, it is *very* difficult to obtain any kind of legal process to effect takedown. Both registrars and p/p providers must have adequate provisions in their agreements with their customers that allow them to take action - on a contractual basis - and suspend domain names when there is malicious or criminal activity. Additionally, for those cases in which registrars and p/p providers can verify the evidence provided by the LE agencies that there is indeed criminal or malicious activity involving domain names that they sponsor, there should be no territorial restrictions for LE agencies to submit reports to them, regardless of whether they are in the same or in a different country as the registrar or p/p provider. In these cases, registrars and p/p providers should simply enforce their own agreements with their registrants/customers and suspend the domain names accordingly and unmask the Whois information.

8 13

Final EWG Report
by Don Blumenthal June 13, 2014

June 13, 2014

FYI, it was released today. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf. I’ll start reading on a plane tomorrow morning. The flight is less than an hour, for change, so I don’t expect to finish all 166 pages. Don

3 2

Updated templates for D-2, D-3 & D-4
by Mary Wong June 12, 2014

June 12, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached updated charter templates for D-2, D-3 and D-4 based on the WG¹s deliberations on the call earlier this week. As compared to the versions sent out for the call this week, the following changes were made: * For D-2, we have added a proposed Preliminary Conclusion; * For D-3 and for D-4, a partial Preliminary Conclusion noting continuing discussions: and * For D-4, we have compiled the proposals suggested by survey respondents regarding the GAC¹s safeguard advice and the PIC specification these have been included in the ³WG Discussion/Response² column of the template. Please note also that, since no further suggested edits or additions were received for the D-1 template that was circulated on 2 June, we have uploaded it to the WG wiki page containing those templates for which preliminary conclusions have been reached: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 10 June 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 10, 2014

June 10, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 10 June 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140610-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140610-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june 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 Justin Macy – BC James Bladel – RrSG Laura Jedeed – BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Michele Neylon – RrSG Chris Pelling – RrSG Jennifer Standiford – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Don Moody – IPC Darcy Southwell - RrSG Graeme Bunton – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Phil Marano – IPC Jim Bikoff – IPC Susan Prosser- RrSG Kristina Rosette – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Tim Ruiz – RrSG David Heasley – IPC Griffin Barnett – IPC Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG Libby Baney – BC Paul McGrady – IPC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC Roy Balleste – NCUC Susan Kawguchi – BC Carlton Samuels-ALAC Volker Greimann - RrSG Apologies: Kathy Kleiman – NCUC Christian Dawson – ISPCP Holly Raiche – ALAC Alex Deacon - IPC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins 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 10 June 2014: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 10 June 2014 Chris Pelling:afternoon all, just listening to the blues on the system Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Graeme Bunton:Good morning all Libby Baney:Good morning everyone Val Sherman:Good morning Michele Neylon:AFK - BRB Tim Ruiz:Hello, just joined. Jennifer Standiford:Hello Terri Agnew:Jennifer Standiford has joined Terri Agnew:Jim Bikoff has joined Terri Agnew:Darcy Southwell has joined Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined Kristina Rosette:Good morning! Terri Agnew:Kristina I have added you to attendance list Graeme Bunton:onwards and upwards Mary Wong:The list of principles the EWG recommends for accredited P/P services is on pp. 100-101 of the EWG Final Report. Chris Pelling:prompt shuld not be a defind period Carlton:Howdy to all Graeme Bunton:Agreeing with steve re: designated, dedicated would be burdensome to many Michele Neylon:sorry - office network is b0rked Darcy Southwell:Agree with Steve and Graeme that it should be designated (not dedicated). Val Sherman:+1 @steve steve metalitz:+1 on "capable and authorized" as per James Mary Wong:The Compliance and LEA feedback is what you're seeing now on screen in AC. Terri Agnew:Carlton has joined Graeme Bunton:spam volume has increased more than 10x into our monitored emails Terri Agnew:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined steve metalitz:I believe question D.4 gets directly to the types of abuse complaints to be acted upon. Bladel:Borked? Is that a technical term? Graeme Bunton:That's a sign. For sure, Michele Don Blumenthal:Apparently. From Michele earlier - sorry - office network is b0rked Michele Neylon:not sure what happened - something went pop steve metalitz:Move on to D3 Carlton:So the consensus is for "designated" contact? Graeme Bunton:That was my understanding, Carlton Michele Neylon:Carlton - I think so Carlton:Great. That is the sensible choice Carlton:Re Q3, Is there a common understanding of what 'full WHOIS contact details" mean? Michele Neylon:No idea Michele Neylon:I don't even know what that means Mary Wong:The Whois RT recs for P/P services reads in part: "Clearly labeling WHOIS entries to indicate that registrations have been made by a privacy or proxy service;ô°€ Providing full WHOIS contact details for the privacy/proxy service provider, which are contactable and responsive; ... " Jennifer Standiford:'full WHOIS' is not a defined term in the 2013 RAA Carlton:I'm presuming the qualifier 'full' was intentional. Aaah.... Mary Wong:Per James' comment, Section 2.1 of th Temporary P/P Spec in the 2013 RAA reads: "P/P Provider shall publish the terms and conditions of its service (including pricing), on its website and/or Registrar's website." Mary Wong:And in 2.3: "P/P Provider shall publish its business contact information on its website and/or Registrar's website.." Carlton:@Michele: +1. I would think this is the real requirement, for the website as a absolute requirement foraccreditation Jennifer Standiford:All registrars are very familiar with the PP spec in the RAA. Bladel:Interesting. Jennifer Standiford:there is no men tioning of the term "full whois" Tim Ruiz:Perhaps to be accredited you are required to use a gTLD. Michele Neylon:Tim - why? Bladel:Why the heck isn't everybody doing that. :) Michele Neylon:Carlton - yup Tim Ruiz:Seriously, I think what Mary posted regarding 2.3 covers this. Can't we just adopt that? Jennifer Standiford:I concur Tim Tim Ruiz:@Michele, I guess I will have to be clearer when I am kidding. Sorry. Tim Ruiz:+1 Michele. Volker Greimann:the user going to whois is a rare case though Kiran Malancharuvil:@Volker - not in the case of consumer protection organizations. As discussed before, we are on Whois all day, every day Volker Greimann:Right, but you are not the typical user. you are a service provider Kiran Malancharuvil:we represent consumers, who are users Volker Greimann:I thought you represented brand owners? Kiran Malancharuvil:"consumer" protection Chris Pelling:I thought the same Volker Bladel:THat's not exactly what Steve is saying, I think. Tim Ruiz:Registrars also represent consumer protection, IMHO. Kiran Malancharuvil:Great, and getting back to the point, we all use Whois, as consumer protectors Kiran Malancharuvil:No one said otherwise Tim Michele Neylon:we can't change whois for cctlds Tim Ruiz:Not responding to anyone, was just making a statement. Michele Neylon:I don't have an issue with ICANN listing accredited companies Graeme Bunton:Agreed with James Carlton:Contact details that resultin contactability 24/7 is an absolute requirement for accreditation Bladel:How could something like that be accredited? Bladel:Accredited entities should -want- to be found, IMO. Tim Ruiz:What about IANA IDs in some way. A new list of IDs for Accredited P/P services with a list of names and associated website addresses. Then use that ID somewhere in the P/P services' clients Whois. Bladel:Some background noise on the call. Microphone? Graeme Bunton:It's difficult to build a privacy or proxy business when you're really hard to find. Michele Neylon:Unless that's your plan .. Chris Pelling:is someone trying to strangle their phone ? Chris Pelling:gettings some serious noise Tim Ruiz:Wow, a lot of noise on the call. Sounds like my joints on a rainy day. Osvaldo Novoa:The noise is quite disturbing Tim Ruiz:Noise is gone now. Tim Ruiz:It's back, must be on Don's line? Chris Pelling:its back Michele Neylon:Don is generating it? Kiran Malancharuvil:It's on your line Don. It only happens when you speak. Chris Pelling:its quite now Jennifer Standiford:i hear the noise Chris Pelling:yes it notmally is Chris Pelling:statue like :p Kristina Rosette:It's the sound that one's phone makes when one is trying to balance the phone on one's shoulder and do something else with one's hands. Volker Greimann:It sounds a bit like you are kneading the mike Carlton:LOL Jennifer Standiford:sounds like the phone cord rubbing up against something Val Sherman:much better! Volker Greimann:sorry Michele Neylon:Jennifer - apparently he's using a headset .. Kristina Rosette:A template for reports to abuse contact? Has the potential to by very helpful, IMHO. Would make reports less burdensome all around. Although I think you'd still need a space for free form text. Kiran Malancharuvil:Agreed Kristina, that would be very helpful! Michele Neylon:Kristina / Kiran - free form is fine Michele Neylon:BUT putting the "meat" at the top is key Kiran Malancharuvil:Well maybe a tiny bit of guided form with free form after? Paul McGrady:I like the idea of standardization. Kristina Rosette:What about the "template" of the information that needs to be in a DMCA takedown notice? Carlton:Starnardisation is always preferred...so long as it enforces the datainfo that must be collected Volker Greimann:+1 for Michele's comment Susan Prosser:I agree standardization would be very beneficial to all. Chris Pelling:DMCA would be to the hosting co, rather than the PP service Michele Neylon:maybe wait to see what Don can get back? Volker Greimann:Also always fun and helpful: "Your customer is spamming me, stop him now!!!" Michele Neylon:I know ther's been work on it Kristina Rosette:@Chris: I know, but the DMCA sets out the information that's required. (I was thinking of it as a starting point.) Tim Ruiz:Thanks Don, bye all. Bladel:Thank you, Don. Kristina Rosette:Bye. Volker Greimann:thank you all Osvaldo Novoa:bye Carlton:Thankd Don. Thanks all Darcy Southwell:Thank you. Susan Prosser:thanks Don Michele Neylon:ciao Chris Pelling:Bye all :)

1 0

FW: Section 3.18 - Registrar's Abuse Contact and Duty to Investigate Reports of Abuse of the 2013 RAA
by Marika Konings June 10, 2014

June 10, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to provision 3.18 of the 2013 RAA. Best regards, Marika +++++++++ Section 3.18, from a Compliance perspective, is going well. While no major barriers have been identified that frustrate ensuring compliance with the 2013 RAA, Compliance has identified two main issues leading to some community uncertainty: understanding of registrar requirements of Section 3.18.1, and the expectations of complainants. The areas requiring clarification by registrars are abuse contact posting requirements and investigating abuse complaints. Registrars were not conspicuously posting an abuse email address as required by Section 3.18.1, either omitting any link or providing a web form instead. Once abuse reports were received, registrars were not taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate reports under 3.18.1. Some registrars did not undertake any investigation, only performed a Whois inaccuracy investigation, or confused abuse reports submitted under 3.18.1 with the requirements of 3.18.2. Other registrars claimed that abuse reports would only be reviewed under court order, which is not a requirement in the 2013 RAA. These issues were resolved though the 1-2-3 notice process, with approximately 5 registrars requesting conference calls to discuss and clarify the requirements of Section 3.18.1. To date, all complaints to ICANN under Section 3.18.1 have been resolved before the formal resolution process (breach). The number of these complaints is decreasing as more registrars understand their obligations under the 2013 RAA. ICANN Compliance has not received any complaints under Section 3.18.2. The other area of concern is the expectations of complainants. This includes filing abuse complaints against registrars not under the 2013 RAA, or for non-abuse concerns (such as customer service complaints). Additionally, complainants generally expect that a domain name subject to an an abuse complaint will be suspended or deleted. While many registrars do suspend domains in response to abuse complaints, this is not required by the 2013 RAA. The registrar must demonstrate to ICANN that it took reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately. At a minimum this includes forwarding the complaint to the registrant, and other additional steps depending upon the circumstances. Because Compliance¹s informal resolution process remains confidential, a registrar may provide ICANN with sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance with Section 3.18.1 that cannot be shared with the complainant. Several complainants have expressed frustration to ICANN regarding the inability to force suspension or cancellation of domains subject to abuse complaints, including those involving alleged illegal activity. Adding an abuse report requirement to the P/P Accreditation Agreement may be beneficial, however the Working Group may want to consider providing additional guidance regarding the types of abuse complaints allowed and the types of actions P/P providers should take regarding abuse reports. The Working Group may also want to consider alternative abuse report options other than publishing an email address on a website (and in the Whois output) as registrars have expressed concern regarding increasing spam volumes for published email addresses.

4 3

Some background on D-3 & D-4
by Mary Wong June 10, 2014

June 10, 2014

Hello all we were asked to provide some context to the D-3 and D-4 questions, so we hope the following will help: * Regarding D-3, the question was derived from a Whois RT recommendation that full Whois contact details for a P/P provider should be provided for the purpose of contactability and responsiveness. * D-4 came from a recommendation of the 2010 ALAC-GNSO Joint Drafting Team that was ultimately incorporated into Section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA, which the Team had noted in its report could also possibly apply to P/P providers as such, this type of requirement would raise the D-3 question. Cheers Mary

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda for WG meeting on 10 June 2014
by Mary Wong June 9, 2014

June 9, 2014

Hello again, I¹ve been reminded that I¹ve yet to send the D-4 template, so here it is :) Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda for WG meeting on 10 June 2014 > Dear all, > > The proposed agenda for the PPSAI WG meeting on Tuesday 10 June is as follows: > > 1. Roll Call/Update to SOIs > 2. Finalize discussions on Category D, Question 2 (D-2) > 3. Commence discussions on Category D, Question 3 (D-3) > 4. (If time permits) Commence discussions on Category D, Question 4 (D-4) > > The relevant documents have been updated (where applicable) and uploaded to > the WG wiki space at https://community.icann.org/x/O6nhAg. For your > convenience, the current draft templates for D-2 and D-3 are also attached to > this email. > > Please feel free to continue to respond to my earlier email of 4 June with > several additional questions aimed at furthering discussion on D-2, for which > Michele and Holly have provided their responses thank you! > > Cheers > Mary

1 0