November 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

PP transfer issue
by Amy Bivins Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins(a)icann.org [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006

13 24

Requester jurisdiction
by Chris Pelling Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Good afternoon all, I mentioned in last weeks chat section on the PPSAI call about binding the requester jurisdiction and the requester to the same as the IP owner, to that end, I put forward the following changes to the final report. Let me give an example : Requester sends in a request they have no right too, or operated past their authority with a Rights Holder. 1. Someone you have already worked with before, but they no longer have the authority. 2. A lawyer (or IP person) has sent in a request, where on the face of it looks ok, and after doing a little googling to make certain confirmations that they were linked, well unbeknown to google, the IP rights holders sacked/terminated the requester’s services. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: 1) Annex 1 To Disclosure Framework: Resolving Disputes Arising From Disclosures Made As A Result Of Allegedly Improper Requests Notes: *** Jurisdiction: In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer’s contact information, the Requester and rights holder agrees [change to agree] to submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) where it is incorporated (or of its home address, if an individual), AND (2) where the Provider specifies on its request form, solely for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by the Requester, or from Requester’s and/or rights holder’s knowing misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request. ---------- 2) Equivalent edits to all three Request Templates, e.g., II, A, 6: 1. c) Agrees that the Requester and trademark holder will submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) where it is incorporated (or of its home address, if an individual), AND (2) where the Provider specifies on its request form, solely for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by the Requester, or from Requester’s and/or trademark holder’s knowing misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request. Can we please discuss the above as the first agenda item of the call once the usual prerequisites are done (role call, SOI etc) if there are any objections, otherwise, no need too and lets get the above into the final report. Thanks and regards, Chris

3 3

Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
by Mary Wong Dec. 1, 2015

Dec. 1, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG¹s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter in relation to de-accreditation adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG¹s further agreement in Dublin about ³importing² a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG¹s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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

9 15

Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 1 December
by Mary Wong Nov. 30, 2015

Nov. 30, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next WG call on Tuesday 1 December is as follows; please note that the call will begin at 1430 UTC and is scheduled to run for 90 minutes. 1. Roll call/updates to statements of interest 2. Discussion of specific issues raised on the mailing list regarding the WG¹s proposed final recommendations: > * (a) jurisdiction under the Illustrative Disclosure Framework (suggestion > from Chris Pelling); > * (b) definitional issues regarding privacy/proxy services (suggestion from > James Bladel); > * (c) customer notification as part of de-accreditation (suggestion from Darcy > Southwell); > * (d) labeling in WHOIS regarding knowledge of registrar of record (suggestion > from Luc Seufer); > * (e) application of TEAC standard to P/P provider¹s designated point of > contact (suggestion from Luc Seufer); > * (f) requirement of verification in Recommendation 17 (question from Luc > Seufer) > * (f) accreditation fees (suggestion from Luc Seufer) 3. Review of changes to WG's proposed final recommendations (as documented in the Executive Summary) from previous version (circulated on 8 October) 4. Next steps closure of Consensus Call 5. Any other business We note that many of the discussion points raised by WG members in Agenda Item #2 above are currently being worked out and discussed on the mailing list, and therefore list them here to ensure they are noted as member feedback. 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

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 14:30 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 14:30 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-17nov15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> Attendees: Alex Deacon – IPC Chris Pelling - RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Frank Michlick – Individual Graeme Bunton - RrSG Griffin Barnett– IPC Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid– RrSG Luc Seufer - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Paul McGrady - IPC Roger Carney-RrSG Sara Bockey - RrSG Sarah Wyld – RrSG Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Steve Metalitz – IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Todd Williams - IPC Volker Greimann– RrSG Apologies: Holly Raiche – ALAC James Gannon – NCUC Christian Dawson - ISPCP James Bladel – RrSG Phil Corwin ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Mike Zupke Mary Wong Glen de Saint Gery Nathalie Peregrine Gisella Gruber ** 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 Gruber ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 17 November 2015 Gisella Gruber:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call on Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 14:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Osvaldo Novoa:Hello, I am connecting my audio now Chris Pelling:afternoon all :) Chris Pelling:all gone quiet Chris Pelling:? Graeme Bunton:Working for me, Chris Chris Pelling:last person I heard was Mary I believe Mary Wong:@Steve, apologies - yes we'd made a further update by pasting James Bladel's email notes that he just sent, since he can't join the call today. Chris Pelling:ok so voice bridge was down Gisella Gruber:Luc Seufer has joined the call Marika Konings:Not sure whether it would be within scope for this group to recommend changes to the IRTP.... Marika Konings:although it could obviously be an issue to review for future IRTP WGs? Gisella Gruber:Stephanie Perrin has joined the call Luc Seufer:we can still recommend even if it's not follow with effect Marika Konings:I think IRTP Part C clearly defined what constitutes a change of registrant - which I believe did factor in various scenarios. Luc Seufer:not sure it factors reveals Kathy K:I've been on hold for some time trying to join the call Gisella Gruber:Kathy Kleiman has joined the call Gisella Gruber:@ Kathy - I will notify the operator Kathy K:tx! Marika Konings:@Luc - I understood we are talking here about triggering the 60 day lock, not reveal Luc Seufer:sorry I meant disclose Luc Seufer:if a special rule needs to be included, it needs to be limited to the suspension of accredited PP services. Gisella Gruber:Roger Carney has joined the call Luc Seufer:Otherwise it would be impossible to follow for registrars. (when to lock for 60 days or not to) Kathy K:Steve - do we have a specific rec for the next IRTP team? Mary Wong:@Kathy, it's a general rec to look more specifically to P/P impacts at the moment, hence my suggestion Luc Seufer:in any case if those go foward they will most certainly conflict with IRTP so which one will prevail? Mary Wong:@Luc, hence the suggestion for a compatibility check during implementation, and also the general rec to consider P/P impacts in the next review of the IRTP. Gisella Gruber:Volker Greiman has moined the call Gisella Gruber:Greimann - apologies Luc Seufer:he is a monk now? Luc Seufer:@Mary thanks Gisella Gruber:Susan Kawaguchi has joined the call Susan Kawaguchi:sorry forgot this call started at 6:30 am Susan Kawaguchi:but the operator has not answered yet Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:this time change made the meeting more difficult Mike Zupke:Apologies, I need to leave for another call. Kathy K:@Volker - agreed Paul McGrady:Thanks Kathy! Kathy K:Tx Paul! Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:sorry, but the RAA language is a problem Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:"may not knowingly accept" is pretty clear Luc Seufer:Just a semantic remark, either P/P service providers are accredited and thus they have this quality of P/P service providers or they aren't and they are something else. Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:i.e. once we find out they are non-accredited, regardless of how we decide how they should be treated, registrars cannot accept their registrations, with all the consequences for existing services Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:err, registrations Kathy K:that's right Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:also, with this language, "Rights Holder" is too narrow Mary Wong:I believe the premise is that this "annex to the Annex" would be triggered by knowing misuse - ie the requester gives a provider false information based upon which the provider discloses customer information. Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:obviously, other third parties may also raise a complaint, even if they are not "Rights Holders" Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:this language is too narrowly focussed on the copyright/trademark crowd Mary Wong:@Volker, the idea (I think) is that it would be the requester, as defined in the main document - so we will do a consistency check for language. Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:best stick to Requester all the way Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:thank you Mary Chris Pelling:Is this a good time to bring up that the rights holder and requestor need to be bound Kathy K:yes Mary Wong:Note this additional language in the current draft of the framework: Under these standards, disclosure is wrongful only when it is effected by the Requester having made knowingly false representations to the Provider. Disclosure is not wrongful if the Requester had a good faith basis for seeking disclosure at the time the Request was submitted to the Provider.Under these standards, misuse occurs only when a Requester knowingly uses Customer contact information disclosed to it by a Service Provider for a purpose other than one of the specific purposes for which it had agreed to use such information (as listed in Section II.A(6), II.B(7), and II.C(6) of the Policy). Luc Seufer:how does this cope with registrations by law firms? Wouldn't they be not accredited P/P service providers which registratiopns should be denied by registrars? Susan Kawaguchi:Steve I am on now Mary Wong:Yes, the need for requester to comply with "all applicable data protection laws" is now in the framework document. Stephanie Perrin:This language is very specific about the surrender of jurisdiction, just trying to make sure that it is not construed narrowly, so as to deny that provision for accidental (careless) disclosure Kathy K:right! Todd Williams:Mary makes a good point above. As we've defined misuse (use for a purpose other than one of the specified purposes), I'm not sure how that could be done unknowingly. Kathy K:too early Pacific time! Gisella Gruber:Alex Deacon has joined the call Kathy K:Hi Alex! Alex Deacon:morning! :) Susan Kawaguchi:@mary happy to continue working on it Mary Wong:Thanks Susan! Kathy K:It looks like there is enough time in the schedule for the work ahead. Kathy K:Bring it back to the meeting next week? or bring it back after we have a draft Final Report? Kathy K:I agree with Steve - it may take a little more time Paul McGrady:Flip Mary Wong:@Steve, yes, I'll try to make it clearer. Thanks! Mary Wong:I'll also follow up with Sub Team 3 to get a final draft from them for the framework before Friday. Paul McGrady:Thanks Steve! Great call. Graeme Bunton:Thanks Steve Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you, bye Chris Pelling:Thganks Ste3ve Volker A. Greimann - RrSG GNSO:bye Chris Pelling:THanks Steve *

1 0

Policy Team Strategic Workshop 30 November - 4 December 2015
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Dear all, Policy staff will taking part in a Strategic Workshop from the 30th November to the 4th December 2015. Whilst minimum coverage of conference calls will be provided, please expect delays regarding email response time. If you do have an urgent request, please mark URGENT in the email title, so we can treat it as a matter of priority. We thank you for your understanding. Kind regards Nathalie _____________________________ Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann

1 0

Privacy and Transfers
by James M. Bladel Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Colleagues - Another topic discussed during last week's call, and during our ad-hoc "subteam" on Friday, was the matter of private registrations and Inter-Registrar Transfers. While this subject is certainly less interesting to many when compared against developing rules for abuse, disclosure, etc., I am confident that rules & standards set for Transfers will be much more important on a day-to-day basis for Registrants. And while there are tons of implementation details to work out, here are some high-level ideals that can help us move forward in our work. Currently, most P/P Services will automatically reject a transfer request. This is the simplest approach, as it ensures that domains managed by P/P services "stay home" with their affiliated Registrar. Also, this method has the added benefit of providing an additional layer of security against domain name theft/hijacking. As some have noted, this also ties a domain name to a specific Registrar. If the only way for a Registrant to take their domain business elsewhere means that they must give up their privacy service (& publish their personal information in WHOIS). For some Registrants, this would be an unacceptable option. Also, Registrars are concerned that the required Form of Authorization (FOA) for a domain transfer would be invalid if it this was presented to a P/P Service rather than the Registrant (or Admin Contact). I think we can structure our work to allow & encourage (but not necessarily require) Registrars and P/P Services to work together to facilitate "private transfers." But some common principles would need to be noted in our Final Report. For example: 1. Registrars are still free to reject incoming transfers from any entity, including Accredited P/P Services. This is the status quo, and an important concept in our industry. Otherwise, bad actors (spammers, etc.) would be able to sneak back in to prohibited registrars using P/P Services. 2. Registrars can cooperate (operationally & commercially) to allow incoming transfers from P/P Services affiliated with other Registrars, or P/P Services that are independent. This would include some audit-able means to ensure that the transfer was properly authorized by the P/P Service on behalf of its customer. 3. As a pre-condition for a "private transfer," Registrars are allowed to require Registrants to either switch to their own P/P Service (if available), or to cancel the P/P Service associated with their previous Registrar. Some fixed window (30 days?) should be available for Registrants to make this choice. I have no illusions that there are tons of gaps/missing details here, but these are just a few ideas to get us on the path towards addressing this issue. I'm hoping that other Registrars on the group will chime in, especially those who spot technical/operational challenges with this approach. And, for comparison of scale, please keep in mind that while we may encounter a handful of abusive/infringing domains each week, the same time period could see tens of thousands of inter-registrar transfers. So it is important that we on the PPSAI not leave this issue as a loose thread. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

1 0

Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers
by Susan Kawaguchi Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Hello All, I have given more thought about the discussion concerning accredited proxy vendors versus all other unaccredited proxy vendors, including lawyers. It seems to me that we are never going to be able to capture each variation of the unaccredited proxy vendor and James brought up a point that I think we should consider. If accredited proxy vendors adhere to all the requirements we are describing they will have the benefit of not being considered the registrant of the domain name. Any other type of unaccredited proxy service should simply not exist and they should always be considered the registrant with all the rights and liabilities that go along with being the registrant. We simply would not recognize any other existing relationship. We could make this very clear Accredited proxy or registrant and not delve into all the grey areas. The unaccredited proxy provider would be considered the Registrant in all actions including the URS and UDRP. I am hoping we can discuss further on the call tomorrow. Best, Susan Kawaguchi Facebook, Inc.

9 14

Agenda, documents and updated language for discussion on WG call of 17 November 2015
by Mary Wong Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 17 November, is as follows. Please note that this call is scheduled for ninety (90) minutes starting at 1430 UTC. 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Continue discussion of possible implementation guidance concerning transfers and de-accreditation (Susan Kawaguchi / ICANN staff) 3. Finalize language concerning the definition of privacy/proxy service providers 4. Finalize language for Option Two of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework (Kathy Kleiman / Todd Williams / Sub Team 3) 5. Next steps deadlines and initiation of consensus call on Final Report For agenda item #2: Please see the attached document, which is a summary of the call that took place on Friday with Susan and James Bladel, who had volunteered to work on this issue with ICANN operational staff. For agenda item #3: The co-chairs will be circulating proposed updated language based on that discussed on the last WG call. Please also refer to the ongoing discussion on the WG mailing list. For agenda item #4: The proposed updated language from Sub Team 3 is as follows: > ³In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer¹s contact > information, Rights Holder agrees to to submit, without prejudice to other > potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) > where it is incorporated (or of its home address, if an individual), AND (2) > where the Provider specifies on its request form, solely for disputes arising > from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by > the Requester, or from Requester¹s and/or Rights Holder¹s knowing misuse of > information disclosed to it in response to its request.² For agenda item #5: Please see the current WG Work Plan (attached); the co-chairs will describe the expected deadlines on the call tomorrow. 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

4 3

Action items from WG call today
by Mary Wong Nov. 10, 2015

Nov. 10, 2015

Dear WG members, Following up on the call earlier today, the co-chairs would like to encourage everyone to continue discussions on the mailing list so that we can finalize our recommendations soon. For your review and discussion, the co-chairs are proposing the updated draft language below on the two main outstanding issues, based on the most recent WG discussions. (1) On additional language for the definition of P/P service providers: > "The WG recommends that Registrars not knowingly accept registrations from P/P > service providers who are not accredited through the process developed by > ICANN. For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third > parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as > outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply.² > (2) On Option 2 (Jurisdiction) of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework: > "In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer¹s contact > information, Requester agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in > the location specified by the Provider in its published Terms of Service, > solely for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by > knowingly false statements made by the Requester, or from Requester¹s knowing > misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request.² Please also take this opportunity to provide feedback on the substantive recommendations contained in the draft Final Report circulated on 8 October, as we are finalizing an updated draft for circulation shortly. 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