October 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Domain Phishing
by Graeme Bunton Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

One of the refrains I think we've all heard from registrars is that the reasons for using a P/P service are many, but very frequently as simple as 'less spam'. We've also maintained that there is nothing inherently dubious or suspicious about a P/P registration. The current massive phishing campaign being waged against registrants I think highlights these things very clearly, and the below articles from DNW are worth a read: http://domainnamewire.com/2015/10/27/domain-phishing/ and http://domainnamewire.com/2015/10/26/warning-domain-name-phishing-email-bla… Graeme -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Analytics and Insights Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

2 1

Escrowing of Data by NON accredited P/P Providers and accredited Providers that are not already ICANN accredited registrars.
by Chris Pelling Oct. 26, 2015

Oct. 26, 2015

Afternoon all, Further to the F2F, I would further like to remind us all and put on record the escrowing of the underlying data of the registrant. Registrars whom are signed up to the 2009/2013 RAA have to escrow the underlying data of the registrant to an ICANN escrow provider, for example Iron Mountain, weekly, or in some cases depending on size of registrar - daily. Now with regards a lawyer whom will not be accredited if I am understanding the conversations correctly, how is the registrar to know that a registration from a lawyer is the registrant rather than the lawyer himself? Registrars now within ICANN audits have to stipulate the domains that the registrar owns, maybe lawyers and P/P providers should have the same caveat. I can see at some point these providers will fall within an audit that ICANN cooks up. Maybe it should be the case, that lawyers would have to enter into the same type of agreement with escrowing underlying data, and then, more importantly take an accredited P/P provider whom is NOT a registrar should also enter this same agreement with ICANN. The background and reasoning behind this was because of a registrar going "pop" leaves a total mess of registrants data and/or any data at all, the same can be said for lawyers who are disbarred, similar to the conversation in the F2F where we were told that lawyers who do not play by the rules would risk this, and there is a path to facilitate this if repeated incidents happen. I would, and probably like many registrars expect, no less than the same escrowing of underlying registrant data by any lawyer / accredited P/P provider that's not an ICANN accredited registrar. Lastly, to be frank if a lawyer does not wish to adhere to the P/P provisions that we have spent near 2 years debating and crafting, then what was the point of spending all this time in this PDP just to create tiers where some have to work within the rules and some don't. Kind Regards, Chris

1 0

Action items from Dublin F2F meeting & list of staff operational feedback
by Mary Wong Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

Dear WG members, We hope that those members that were in Dublin had a productive meeting, and wish you safe travels home. Attached are two documents for further WG discussion: (1) a list of action items arising from the face-to-face meeting on 16 October; and (2) a summary of possible operational issues for WG consideration (to the extent that any are identified as requiring further policy guidance and/or rewording of existing WG recommendations). Please note that document (1) does not include a number of editing changes and additional language agreed on by the WG in Dublin, which the co-chairs and staff will work on and include in the next iteration of the draft Final Report. Finally, please note that, as is customary following an ICANN Public Meeting, there will be no WG meeting on Tuesday 27 October. WG meetings will resume on Tuesday 3 November. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services
by Mary Wong Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

Dear WG members, As you¹ll recall, at our face to face meeting on Friday, the WG discussed whether there is a need to clarify whether the WG²s proposed definition of P/P services includes, or should expressly exclude, lawyers and attorneys who, as service providers, do proxy service registrations for clients in light of concerns over the impact on the right to counsel. The co-chairs would like to offer the following language for your further discussion: "The issue of whether or not accreditation standards would apply to attorneys was raised in public comments. However, we believe it is outside of ICANN¹s remit to regulate attorney/client relationships and we believe that ICANN should avoid attempting to do so in any implementation of our proposed policy.² Please feel free to continue the discussion via email to this list. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

13 14

Please read if you are attending the WG Dublin session in person
by Mary Wong Oct. 20, 2015

Oct. 20, 2015

We just wanted to let you know that there won¹t be any coffee, tea or refreshments at the WG open session tomorrow (Wednesday 20 October) - so please get ³fueled up² before arriving at the Convention Center. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

FW: Co-Chairs Draft Language for Updating Section 1 3 3 - 30 Sept
by Mary Wong Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Dear all, As there seems to be intermittent problems with WG members receiving (or rather, not receiving) emails from other WG members, Vicky has asked me to forward her message and suggested amendments to the Section 1.3.3. language, in case some of you did not receive her first note. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler(a)riaa.com> Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 09:17 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org>, "Steven J. Metalitz (met(a)msk.com)" <met(a)msk.com> Subject: Co-Chairs Draft Language for Updating Section 1 3 3 - 30 Sept > Please see attached some suggested clarifications to the last paragraph of > this document (on top of the redlines in the draft Mary sent around). For > your reference, I¹ve copied the updated paragraph below. MARY I¹m not sure > if this will make it to the entire working group can you please forward it > on just in case? Thanks. -Vicky > > The Working Group notes that at least some significant current providers of > these services have adopted and do enforce similar restrictions on who may use > their particular services. The Working Group¹s conclusion that such a > prohibition should not be incorporated into accreditation standards at this > time is not meant to discourage accredited providers from adopting and > implementing such policies if they so choose (provided that other relevant > criteria, such as publication of terms of service and grounds for termination > of the service, are fulfilled). The Working Group also notes that at least > some registrants engaged in commercial transactions using domain names > registered through P/P services are doing so to carry out illegal activities > or other abuses that may provide a basis for disclosure or publication under > another part of these accreditation standard, or under terms of service > adopted and published by accredited providers. In other words, the Working > Group¹s conclusion that registrants engaged in commercial or transactional > activities should not be considered per se ineligible to use P/P services > should have no impact on a particular registrant¹s eligibility (or not) to do > so on other grounds. >

2 1

Date & time of open community session at ICANN54
by Mary Wong Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Dear WG members, Please note that due to overall schedule changes and some session clashes affecting a number of GNSO constituencies/groups, the WG¹s open community session at ICANN54 in Dublin will be this Wednesday, 21 October, at 0800-0900 Dublin time. Remote participation details and location can be found here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-ppsai. Thank you. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Additional Documents for Dublin F2F meeting
by Mary Wong Oct. 14, 2015

Oct. 14, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached the following documents: (1) The list of issues identified in Parts 1 through 3 of the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool for further WG discussion, with the co-chairs¹ proposed response to each issue; (2) A summary of the recommendations from Sub Team 4; and (3) An updated Sub Team 4 report including the recommendations summarized in (2), in ³redlined² format to show the changes from the version last circulated to the WG. Please note that the Sub Team 4 documents have not yet been discussed or reviewed by all the Sub Team members, and as such are subject to further discussion and change. In relation to the various categories of comments it reviewed, the Sub Team has not yet finalized its full recommendations for Categories F and G, although certain recommendations from those two categories that seem to have Sub Team support have been included in the summary document. With the addition of these three documents to the latest version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework (last circulated for the WG meeting on 6 October) and the draft Final Report (circulated on 8 October), the full set of documents for discussion at the WG face to face meeting this Friday has now been distributed. For your convenience, we have created a wiki page for the upcoming face-to-face meeting that sets out the draft schedule and attaches all these documents keyed to their respective sessions: https://community.icann.org/x/uaxYAw. Thanks, everyone; see you in Dublin, either in person or virtually! Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 23:12 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: For your review and further WG discussion - Draft Final Report > Dear WG members, > > Please find attached a marked-up (or ³redlined²) version of the first draft of > our proposed Final Report as well as a clean version of the same (for easier > reading). The mark-up shows the proposed changes from the published version of > our Initial Report. Please note that this draft has not yet been seen or > reviewed by the WG chairs; however, as discussed on the WG call this past > Tuesday, the plan is to set aside some time during the face-to-face meeting > next Friday in Dublin to start discussing the report. To that end staff has > been authorized to update the Initial Report and circulate this draft Final > Report. > > Here are some additional notes for your convenient reference: > > (1) The majority of the textual changes, not surprisingly, are in the > Executive Summary and to some extent Section 6 (to which a brief description > of how the WG has handled the public comments has been added) and Section 7 > (in relation to Category C, as regards commercial activity and online > financial transactions). Other changes have generally been more minor, and > focus largely on updating the Initial Report in terms e.g. of removing > references to preliminary recommendations and open issues. > > (2) We have NOT added in a revised Illustrative Disclosure Framework or any > new general recommendations, pending the outcome of the WG¹s discussions of > the work from Sub Teams 3 and 4. > > (3) Throughout the document but most especially in the Executive Summary > we have inserted comments and questions that remain to be addressed by the WG, > whether at the upcoming face-to-face meeting in Dublin, to take into account > staff operational feedback, or on a post-Dublin call. As you review the > revisions, please be sure to pay attention to these comments and questions. > > (4) The outcome of the required formal Consensus Call may well change some of > the assumed conclusions, and therefore this is only a draft of a Final Report > that we anticipate will likely see some revisions as the WG proceeds with its > deliberations. As such, please forgive any gaps and other typographical or > formatting errors. These will of course all be corrected in the final version. > > We hope that providing you with even a fairly rough draft of the proposed > Final Report at this time will enable you to review the document as well as > the remaining issues and questions for WG discussion before we meet again next > Friday in Dublin. Remote participation details for the Dublin face-to-face > meeting will be sent around to everyone shortly. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > >

1 0

Tentative draft schedule for PPSAI WG face-to-face meeting on 16 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear WG members, As you prepare for our Dublin meeting, the co-chairs thought it might be helpful to circulate a draft agenda for the upcoming face-to-face meeting on Friday 16 October. Please note that the schedule is subject to further changes, pending ongoing discussions among the co-chairs and staff, and within the respective Sub Teams. We hope to circulate the documents highlighted in the attached schedule shortly. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

7 8

For your review and further WG discussion - Draft Final Report
by Mary Wong Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a marked-up (or ³redlined²) version of the first draft of our proposed Final Report as well as a clean version of the same (for easier reading). The mark-up shows the proposed changes from the published version of our Initial Report. Please note that this draft has not yet been seen or reviewed by the WG chairs; however, as discussed on the WG call this past Tuesday, the plan is to set aside some time during the face-to-face meeting next Friday in Dublin to start discussing the report. To that end staff has been authorized to update the Initial Report and circulate this draft Final Report. Here are some additional notes for your convenient reference: (1) The majority of the textual changes, not surprisingly, are in the Executive Summary and to some extent Section 6 (to which a brief description of how the WG has handled the public comments has been added) and Section 7 (in relation to Category C, as regards commercial activity and online financial transactions). Other changes have generally been more minor, and focus largely on updating the Initial Report in terms e.g. of removing references to preliminary recommendations and open issues. (2) We have NOT added in a revised Illustrative Disclosure Framework or any new general recommendations, pending the outcome of the WG¹s discussions of the work from Sub Teams 3 and 4. (3) Throughout the document but most especially in the Executive Summary we have inserted comments and questions that remain to be addressed by the WG, whether at the upcoming face-to-face meeting in Dublin, to take into account staff operational feedback, or on a post-Dublin call. As you review the revisions, please be sure to pay attention to these comments and questions. (4) The outcome of the required formal Consensus Call may well change some of the assumed conclusions, and therefore this is only a draft of a Final Report that we anticipate will likely see some revisions as the WG proceeds with its deliberations. As such, please forgive any gaps and other typographical or formatting errors. These will of course all be corrected in the final version. We hope that providing you with even a fairly rough draft of the proposed Final Report at this time will enable you to review the document as well as the remaining issues and questions for WG discussion before we meet again next Friday in Dublin. Remote participation details for the Dublin face-to-face meeting will be sent around to everyone shortly. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Correct MP3 URL - MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-06oct15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Alex Deacon - IPC Carlton Samuels - At–Large Chris Pelling - RrSG Christian Dawson - ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Don Blumenthal-RySG Frank Michlick –- Individual Graeme Bunton -– RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Iranga Kahangama James Bladel -– RrSG Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid -– RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Paul McGrady –- IPC Phil Corwin – BC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Sara Bockey - RrSG Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Steve Metalitz – IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Theo Gurts - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Val Sherman -– IPC Vicky Sheckler Volker Greimann - RrSG Apologies: Sarah Wyld – RrSG Holly Raiche –- ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC ICANN staff: Glen de St Gery Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Gisella Gruber Chantelle Doerksen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Chantelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 6 October 2015 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th October 2015 Graeme Bunton: Getting some typing sounds. Mary Wong: Please mute your mics if not speaking, thank you! Chris Pelling: afternoon all Theo Geurts: hello all Carlton Samuels: Morning everybody Volker A. Greimann: afternoon Bladel: Good morning! Kathy: Is anyone else hearing a lot of static? Graeme Bunton: Not at the moment, Kathy Kathy: Just me... Chris Pelling: on the voice bridge I get static every now and then Volker A. Greimann: Re: the disclosure framework, it appears one essential element has been forgotten in the drafting: "No disclosure if Requestor has not met the requirements of disclosure, in the opinion of the provider" Graeme Bunton: Nothing from me, Steve. Mary Wong: Yes, this is the document staff received over the weekend and forwarded to the WG on Sunday. Volker A. Greimann: would today be the right time to raise that? Mary Wong: @Volker, we may get to that document later - but LMK if that is a provision that got edited out somewhere? Graeme Bunton: We should hopefully get there as part of item 4 on today's agenda i think. Chris Pelling: ill be leaving at 1700 at Dublin Chris Pelling: just an fyi Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: no, it was not discussed, it was simply forgotten Todd Williams: @Volker: doesn't III(C)(iii) cover what you're describing? Happy to discuss when we get to it. Volker A. Greimann: indeed. Volker A. Greimann: lets do it then Mary Wong: The document is unsync'ed so everyone can scroll as wished. Christian Dawson: Sorry for late arrival. Vicky Sheckler: kathy - as Paul mentioned, the subteam has not had a chance to review together an dthese are issues, not firm firm recommendations Mary Wong: Note that while ICANN may be able to collect the anecdotal data noted here, we won't be able to verify the data or the senders. Stephanie Perrin: You are fading out Steve Volker A. Greimann: Steve, you alternate between normal voice and baraly audible voice Val S.: I hear him fine Chantelle Doerksen: Iranga Kahangama, Lindsey Hamilton-Reid, and Christian Dawson have joined us. Mary Wong: Note #2: The WG can agree to recommend a periodic review, but the details of when, how etc will likely be worked out by the Implementation Reiew Team. Chantelle Doerksen: Osvaldo Novoa has joined. Chantelle Doerksen: Stephanie Perrin has joined. Stephanie Perrin: I dont see that determining data retention periods by jurisdiction is that ambitious. Stephanie Perrin: (for instance) Stephanie Perrin: The isssue of penalties is extremely important, otherwise there are no repercussions for requestors. Bladel: Concerned that we may be creating a loophole, rogue privacy services will restructure as legal advisors in friendly jurisdictions. Chris Pelling: I do not agree with the speaker here Stephanie Perrin: +1 James B Chris Pelling: you are suggesting that they simply can get around this. Chris Pelling: Yet you wish to remove the human rights of the PP service user Chris Pelling: come on...... Stephanie Perrin: Nobody is taking away the right to counsel, we are simply expecting Attorneys to meet the same standards as everyone else. Chris Pelling: the way forward is they are treated the same Chris Pelling: they have to be accredited Chris Pelling: if we have to be accredited Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: I can't speak for the entire EWG but some of us learned a few things that were just not in our experience, knowledge or on our radar. Chris Pelling: +1 Volker Mary Wong: On the type of vulnerabilities and difficult cases (e.g. asylum) - note that the comments on this point were largely from individuals and groups who were concerned about losing the ability to use P/P services. Mary Wong: So to the extent that the WG's final recommendations do not accomplish that (e.g. robust safeguards against overbroad disclosure) perhaps that is a starting point to resolve the topic? Carlton Samuels: @Volker: +1 I support one set of rules for accessing the service. And the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way Stephanie Perrin: This is the poor man's legal service. Carlton Samuels: ..and with malice towards non! Mary Wong: Hopefully my comments help clarify where the concerns (which in the document are reflected as "according to staff") came from. The review we did include all the additional comments that the Save Domain Privacy petition organizers sent in as well. Stephanie Perrin: We cannot create a species of privacy proxy service provider that does not have the same requirements to reveal as the non-lawyer variety. Carlton Samuels: If we think the rules can be mute in malice, we must give it voice to protect all those who need the service. Volker A. Greimann: maybe the solution is not to let lawyers provide this service, i.e. make certain that the rules cover layers when talking about unaccredited service providers Kathy: some in the world think we should not move forward - and passionately so Volker A. Greimann: that would solve the issue of two sets of rules. just ban them from providing thi non-legal service unless they agree to follow the rules Volker A. Greimann: they can still recommend service providers to their customers Philip Corwin: Volker, I think ICANN lacks any power to prevent attorneys from providing such services to their clients. It's not like they need to be accredited Volker A. Greimann: right, but it can force registrars to suspend such registrations under their terms Volker A. Greimann: lawyers=unaccredited service provider= trigger for registrar enforcement of consequences Volker A. Greimann: "you used a lawyer to hide your identity from the whois? He is not accredited? Sorry, under ICANN policies, which you accepted, we must now suspend the domain... Mary Wong: @Steve, from the ICANN perspective, we do not believe either the WG or ICANN can deem any law applicable. Mary Wong: This is not to say we don't agree that this is an important concern, just that we do not believe we have the legal authority to do so. Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: something similar to the choice of law requirements of the UDRP may work Volker A. Greimann: i.e. those who avail themselves of a defined process must agree to certain jurisdictions¥ Mary Wong: @Volker, possibly - but even there it's not a single jurisdiction that is mandated. Bladel: Just thankst o Subteam 4. Mary Wong: And this may be a bit more complicated because there isn't just one single contract involved. Don Blumenthal: I think that jurisdiction is beyond our scope . However, I'll mention that LE is not the only possible source of legal paperwork. Mary Wong: @Steve, noted. Mary Wong: This is the version circulated but including Stephanie's comments from yesterday. Kathy: Steve - I think people might need to review Kathy: Tx to Todd for our work together on this version Philip Corwin: I must drop off to join SO/AC leader call. See you all in Dublin -- safe travel! Rudi Vansnick: have to go too ... SO/AC call Volker A. Greimann: correct Steve, thanks Volker A. Greimann: that is what i think as well, it just should be clearer Kathy: A bit more clarity might be good... Carlton Samuels: Thanks everbody Frank Michlick: See you in Dublin. Thank you. Bladel: Thanks, folks. Safe travels. Sara Bockey: thanks all Carlton Samuels: Safe travels to Dublin Graeme Bunton: Thanks all Chantelle Doerksen: Thanks all! Safe travels to Dublin!

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC
by Chantelle Doerksen Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

> Dear All, > > Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation > Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: > > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-06oct15-en.mp3 > <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-29sep15-en.mp3> > > On page: > http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> > > The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master > Calendar page: > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ > > Attendees: > Alex Deacon - IPC > Carlton Samuels - AtLarge > Chris Pelling - RrSG > Christian Dawson - ISPCP > Darcy Southwell RrSG > Don Blumenthal-RySG > Frank Michlick - Individual > Graeme Bunton - RrSG > Griffin Barnett - IPC > Iranga Kahangama > James Bladel - RrSG > Kathy Kleiman - NCSG > Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG > Osvaldo Novoa ISPCP > Paul McGrady - IPC > Phil Corwin BC > Rudi Vansnick NPOC > Sara Bockey - RrSG > Stephanie Perrin NCSG > Steve Metalitz IPC > Susan Kawaguchi - BC > Theo Gurts - RrSG > Todd Williams - IPC > Val Sherman - IPC > Vicky Sheckler > Volker Greimann - RrSG > > > Apologies: > Sarah Wyld RrSG > Holly Raiche - ALAC > Kiran Malancharuvil IPC > > > ICANN staff: > Glen de St Gery > Mary Wong > Marika Konings > Amy Bivins > Gisella Gruber > Chantelle Doerksen > > > ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** > > Mailing list archives: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ > > Wiki page: > https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Chantelle > > ------------------------------- > > Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 6 October 2015 > Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th October > 2015 > Graeme Bunton: Getting some typing sounds. > Mary Wong: Please mute your mics if not speaking, thank you! > Chris Pelling: afternoon all > Theo Geurts: hello all > Carlton Samuels: Morning everybody > Volker A. Greimann: afternoon > Bladel: Good morning! > Kathy: Is anyone else hearing a lot of static? > Graeme Bunton: Not at the moment, Kathy > Kathy: Just me... > Chris Pelling: on the voice bridge I get static every now and then > Volker A. Greimann: Re: the disclosure framework, it appears one essential > element has been forgotten in the drafting: "No disclosure if Requestor has > not met the requirements of disclosure, in the opinion of the provider" > Graeme Bunton: Nothing from me, Steve. > Mary Wong: Yes, this is the document staff received over the weekend and > forwarded to the WG on Sunday. > Volker A. Greimann: would today be the right time to raise that? > Mary Wong: @Volker, we may get to that document later - but LMK if that is a > provision that got edited out somewhere? > Graeme Bunton: We should hopefully get there as part of item 4 on today's > agenda i think. > Chris Pelling: ill be leaving at 1700 at Dublin > Chris Pelling: just an fyi > Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: no, it was not discussed, it was simply forgotten > Todd Williams: @Volker: doesn't III(C)(iii) cover what you're describing? > Happy to discuss when we get to it. > Volker A. Greimann: indeed. > Volker A. Greimann: lets do it then > Mary Wong: The document is unsync'ed so everyone can scroll as wished. > Christian Dawson: Sorry for late arrival. > Vicky Sheckler: kathy - as Paul mentioned, the subteam has not had a chance to > review together an dthese are issues, not firm firm recommendations > Mary Wong: Note that while ICANN may be able to collect the anecdotal data > noted here, we won't be able to verify the data or the senders. > Stephanie Perrin: You are fading out Steve > Volker A. Greimann: Steve, you alternate between normal voice and baraly > audible voice > Val S.: I hear him fine > Chantelle Doerksen: Iranga Kahangama, Lindsey Hamilton-Reid, and Christian > Dawson have joined us. > Mary Wong: Note #2: The WG can agree to recommend a periodic review, but the > details of when, how etc will likely be worked out by the Implementation Reiew > Team. > Chantelle Doerksen: Osvaldo Novoa has joined. > Chantelle Doerksen: Stephanie Perrin has joined. > Stephanie Perrin: I dont see that determining data retention periods by > jurisdiction is that ambitious. > Stephanie Perrin: (for instance) > Stephanie Perrin: The isssue of penalties is extremely important, otherwise > there are no repercussions for requestors. > Bladel: Concerned that we may be creating a loophole, rogue privacy services > will restructure as legal advisors in friendly jurisdictions. > Chris Pelling: I do not agree with the speaker here > Stephanie Perrin: +1 James B > Chris Pelling: you are suggesting that they simply can get around this. > Chris Pelling: Yet you wish to remove the human rights of the PP service user > Chris Pelling: come on...... > Stephanie Perrin: Nobody is taking away the right to counsel, we are simply > expecting Attorneys to meet the same standards as everyone else. > Chris Pelling: the way forward is they are treated the same > Chris Pelling: they have to be accredited > Chris Pelling: if we have to be accredited > Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: I can't speak for the entire EWG but some of us > learned a few things that were just not in our experience, knowledge or on our > radar. > Chris Pelling: +1 Volker > Mary Wong: On the type of vulnerabilities and difficult cases (e.g. asylum) - > note that the comments on this point were largely from individuals and groups > who were concerned about losing the ability to use P/P services. > Mary Wong: So to the extent that the WG's final recommendations do not > accomplish that (e.g. robust safeguards against overbroad disclosure) perhaps > that is a starting point to resolve the topic? > Carlton Samuels: @Volker: +1 I support one set of rules for accessing the > service. And the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way > Stephanie Perrin: This is the poor man's legal service. > Carlton Samuels: ..and with malice towards non! > Mary Wong: Hopefully my comments help clarify where the concerns (which in the > document are reflected as "according to staff") came from. The review we did > include all the additional comments that the Save Domain Privacy petition > organizers sent in as well. > Stephanie Perrin: We cannot create a species of privacy proxy service provider > that does not have the same requirements to reveal as the non-lawyer variety. > Carlton Samuels: If we think the rules can be mute in malice, we must give it > voice to protect all those who need the service. > Volker A. Greimann: maybe the solution is not to let lawyers provide this > service, i.e. make certain that the rules cover layers when talking about > unaccredited service providers > Kathy: some in the world think we should not move forward - and passionately > so > Volker A. Greimann: that would solve the issue of two sets of rules. just ban > them from providing thi non-legal service unless they agree to follow the > rules > Volker A. Greimann: they can still recommend service providers to their > customers > Philip Corwin: Volker, I think ICANN lacks any power to prevent attorneys from > providing such services to their clients. It's not like they need to be > accredited > Volker A. Greimann: right, but it can force registrars to suspend such > registrations under their terms > Volker A. Greimann: lawyers=unaccredited service provider= trigger for > registrar enforcement of consequences > Volker A. Greimann: "you used a lawyer to hide your identity from the whois? > He is not accredited? Sorry, under ICANN policies, which you accepted, we must > now suspend the domain... > Mary Wong: @Steve, from the ICANN perspective, we do not believe either the WG > or ICANN can deem any law applicable. > Mary Wong: This is not to say we don't agree that this is an important > concern, just that we do not believe we have the legal authority to do so. > Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: something similar to the choice of law requirements > of the UDRP may work > Volker A. Greimann: i.e. those who avail themselves of a defined process must > agree to certain jurisdictions¥ > Mary Wong: @Volker, possibly - but even there it's not a single jurisdiction > that is mandated. > Bladel: Just thankst o Subteam 4. > Mary Wong: And this may be a bit more complicated because there isn't just one > single contract involved. > Don Blumenthal: I think that jurisdiction is beyond our scope . However, I'll > mention that LE is not the only possible source of legal paperwork. > Mary Wong: @Steve, noted. > Mary Wong: This is the version circulated but including Stephanie's comments > from yesterday. > Kathy: Steve - I think people might need to review > Kathy: Tx to Todd for our work together on this version > Philip Corwin: I must drop off to join SO/AC leader call. See you all in > Dublin -- safe travel! > Rudi Vansnick: have to go too ... SO/AC call > Volker A. Greimann: correct Steve, thanks > Volker A. Greimann: that is what i think as well, it just should be clearer > Kathy: A bit more clarity might be good... > Carlton Samuels: Thanks everbody > Frank Michlick: See you in Dublin. Thank you. > Bladel: Thanks, folks. Safe travels. > Sara Bockey: thanks all > Carlton Samuels: Safe travels to Dublin > Graeme Bunton: Thanks all > Chantelle Doerksen: Thanks all! Safe travels to Dublin!

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

* Apologies for the delay in sending this to the Working Group* Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-06oct15-en.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-29sep15-en.mp3> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Alex Deacon - IPC Carlton Samuels - At–Large Chris Pelling - RrSG Christian Dawson - ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Don Blumenthal-RySG Frank Michlick –- Individual Graeme Bunton -– RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Iranga Kahangama James Bladel -– RrSG Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid -– RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Paul McGrady –- IPC Phil Corwin – BC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Sara Bockey - RrSG Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Steve Metalitz – IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Theo Gurts - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Val Sherman -– IPC Vicky Sheckler Volker Greimann - RrSG Apologies: Sarah Wyld – RrSG Holly Raiche –- ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC ICANN staff: Glen de St Gery Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Gisella Gruber Chantelle Doerksen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 6 October 2015 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th October 2015 Graeme Bunton: Getting some typing sounds. Mary Wong: Please mute your mics if not speaking, thank you! Chris Pelling: afternoon all Theo Geurts: hello all Carlton Samuels: Morning everybody Volker A. Greimann: afternoon Bladel: Good morning! Kathy: Is anyone else hearing a lot of static? Graeme Bunton: Not at the moment, Kathy Kathy: Just me... Chris Pelling: on the voice bridge I get static every now and then Volker A. Greimann: Re: the disclosure framework, it appears one essential element has been forgotten in the drafting: "No disclosure if Requestor has not met the requirements of disclosure, in the opinion of the provider" Graeme Bunton: Nothing from me, Steve. Mary Wong: Yes, this is the document staff received over the weekend and forwarded to the WG on Sunday. Volker A. Greimann: would today be the right time to raise that? Mary Wong: @Volker, we may get to that document later - but LMK if that is a provision that got edited out somewhere? Graeme Bunton: We should hopefully get there as part of item 4 on today's agenda i think. Chris Pelling: ill be leaving at 1700 at Dublin Chris Pelling: just an fyi Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: no, it was not discussed, it was simply forgotten Todd Williams: @Volker: doesn't III(C)(iii) cover what you're describing? Happy to discuss when we get to it. Volker A. Greimann: indeed. Volker A. Greimann: lets do it then Mary Wong: The document is unsync'ed so everyone can scroll as wished. Christian Dawson: Sorry for late arrival. Vicky Sheckler: kathy - as Paul mentioned, the subteam has not had a chance to review together an dthese are issues, not firm firm recommendations Mary Wong: Note that while ICANN may be able to collect the anecdotal data noted here, we won't be able to verify the data or the senders. Stephanie Perrin: You are fading out Steve Volker A. Greimann: Steve, you alternate between normal voice and baraly audible voice Val S.: I hear him fine Chantelle Doerksen: Iranga Kahangama, Lindsey Hamilton-Reid, and Christian Dawson have joined us. Mary Wong: Note #2: The WG can agree to recommend a periodic review, but the details of when, how etc will likely be worked out by the Implementation Reiew Team. Chantelle Doerksen: Osvaldo Novoa has joined. Chantelle Doerksen: Stephanie Perrin has joined. Stephanie Perrin: I dont see that determining data retention periods by jurisdiction is that ambitious. Stephanie Perrin: (for instance) Stephanie Perrin: The isssue of penalties is extremely important, otherwise there are no repercussions for requestors. Bladel: Concerned that we may be creating a loophole, rogue privacy services will restructure as legal advisors in friendly jurisdictions. Chris Pelling: I do not agree with the speaker here Stephanie Perrin: +1 James B Chris Pelling: you are suggesting that they simply can get around this. Chris Pelling: Yet you wish to remove the human rights of the PP service user Chris Pelling: come on...... Stephanie Perrin: Nobody is taking away the right to counsel, we are simply expecting Attorneys to meet the same standards as everyone else. Chris Pelling: the way forward is they are treated the same Chris Pelling: they have to be accredited Chris Pelling: if we have to be accredited Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: I can't speak for the entire EWG but some of us learned a few things that were just not in our experience, knowledge or on our radar. Chris Pelling: +1 Volker Mary Wong: On the type of vulnerabilities and difficult cases (e.g. asylum) - note that the comments on this point were largely from individuals and groups who were concerned about losing the ability to use P/P services. Mary Wong: So to the extent that the WG's final recommendations do not accomplish that (e.g. robust safeguards against overbroad disclosure) perhaps that is a starting point to resolve the topic? Carlton Samuels: @Volker: +1 I support one set of rules for accessing the service. And the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way Stephanie Perrin: This is the poor man's legal service. Carlton Samuels: ..and with malice towards non! Mary Wong: Hopefully my comments help clarify where the concerns (which in the document are reflected as "according to staff") came from. The review we did include all the additional comments that the Save Domain Privacy petition organizers sent in as well. Stephanie Perrin: We cannot create a species of privacy proxy service provider that does not have the same requirements to reveal as the non-lawyer variety. Carlton Samuels: If we think the rules can be mute in malice, we must give it voice to protect all those who need the service. Volker A. Greimann: maybe the solution is not to let lawyers provide this service, i.e. make certain that the rules cover layers when talking about unaccredited service providers Kathy: some in the world think we should not move forward - and passionately so Volker A. Greimann: that would solve the issue of two sets of rules. just ban them from providing thi non-legal service unless they agree to follow the rules Volker A. Greimann: they can still recommend service providers to their customers Philip Corwin: Volker, I think ICANN lacks any power to prevent attorneys from providing such services to their clients. It's not like they need to be accredited Volker A. Greimann: right, but it can force registrars to suspend such registrations under their terms Volker A. Greimann: lawyers=unaccredited service provider= trigger for registrar enforcement of consequences Volker A. Greimann: "you used a lawyer to hide your identity from the whois? He is not accredited? Sorry, under ICANN policies, which you accepted, we must now suspend the domain... Mary Wong: @Steve, from the ICANN perspective, we do not believe either the WG or ICANN can deem any law applicable. Mary Wong: This is not to say we don't agree that this is an important concern, just that we do not believe we have the legal authority to do so. Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: something similar to the choice of law requirements of the UDRP may work Volker A. Greimann: i.e. those who avail themselves of a defined process must agree to certain jurisdictions¥ Mary Wong: @Volker, possibly - but even there it's not a single jurisdiction that is mandated. Bladel: Just thankst o Subteam 4. Mary Wong: And this may be a bit more complicated because there isn't just one single contract involved. Don Blumenthal: I think that jurisdiction is beyond our scope . However, I'll mention that LE is not the only possible source of legal paperwork. Mary Wong: @Steve, noted. Mary Wong: This is the version circulated but including Stephanie's comments from yesterday. Kathy: Steve - I think people might need to review Kathy: Tx to Todd for our work together on this version Philip Corwin: I must drop off to join SO/AC leader call. See you all in Dublin -- safe travel! Rudi Vansnick: have to go too ... SO/AC call Volker A. Greimann: correct Steve, thanks Volker A. Greimann: that is what i think as well, it just should be clearer Kathy: A bit more clarity might be good... Carlton Samuels: Thanks everbody Frank Michlick: See you in Dublin. Thank you. Bladel: Thanks, folks. Safe travels. Sara Bockey: thanks all Carlton Samuels: Safe travels to Dublin Graeme Bunton: Thanks all Chantelle Doerksen: Thanks all! Safe travels to Dublin!

1 0

Refinement of SubTeam 4 Report in advance of Dublin
by McGrady, Paul D. Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

WG Generally: Just to echo what was said on the call this morning and in prior emails, if you believe there is an item on the draft SubTeam Report that has already been dealt with by another SubTeam, please: 1. Let us know and 2. Let us know how it was resolved. That way we can compare the issue & resolution to the respective public comment(s) and scratch it from the list if appropriate. So that SubTeam 4 doesn't spit its wheels unnecessarily, I am asking that any such items be identified by midnight UCT on Thursday. Thanks! SubTeam 4: Please write to gnso-ppsai4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> and let the SubTeam know about your availability for a call on Friday after 11am Eastern. Thanks! Best to all, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

1 0

Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 6 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 6 October, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Update on planning for Dublin face-to-face WG meeting 3. Review and discussion of Sub Team 4 report (attached) 4. [If time permits] Review and discussion of updated Illustrative Disclosure Framework from Sub Team 3 (attached) 5. Next steps Please note that while the documents for agenda items #3 and #4 have been worked on by a number of members from each Sub Team, the versions being circulated have not yet been fully reviewed by all members of the respective Sub Teams. Other than the addition of page numbers to facilitate WG discussion, staff has made no changes to the two documents as received. Please also find attached proposed revised language for Section 1.3.3 of the WG report, which concerns the question of online financial transactions and was initially the subject of work by Sub Team 2. This revised version is an update from the document first circulated on behalf of the WG co-chairs on 18 September, and represents the co-chairs¹ suggested update based on the WG discussion of 22 September. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

5 4

Fwd: European Court of Justice Declares Safe Harbor Invalid!
by Stephanie Perrin Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Doubtless folks will have seen this important ECJ decision already, but just in case I take the liberty of forwarding links to materials. Certainly will have an impact. Full decision link is in the press release. Stephanie Perrin Very, very good privacy decision from Europe's highest court. (1) National privacy agencies retain authority to enforce EU fundamental rights (2) The Safe Harbor arrangement in invalid for multiple reasons. The practical impact will be to dramatically increase pressure on the US to update its privacy laws (ECPA, Privacy Act, FTC / DPA, FISA, etc). Background on the EPIC website: https://epic.org/privacy/intl/schrems/default.html [PRESS RELEASE EXCERPT] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.… The Court of Justice declares that the CommissionâEUR^(TM)s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid. Whilst the Court of Justice alone has jurisdiction to declare an EU act invalid, where a claim is lodged with the national supervisory authorities they may, even where the Commission has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of protection of personal data, examine whether the transfer of a personâEUR^(TM)s data to the third country complies with the requirements of the EU legislation on the protection of that data and, in the same way as the person concerned, bring the matter before the national courts, in order that the national courts make a reference for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of examination of that decisionâEUR^(TM)s validity

2 1