December 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

FW: Final Report from the PPSAI Policy Development Process Working Group
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Hello again everyone, Here is the message and attachment that was sent to the GNSO Council after the close of our consensus call yesterday. As noted subsequently, the change for the Jurisdiction clause was made to the annex of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework but not reflected in the corresponding text for each type of request in the body of the Framework. The WG co-chairs have approved staff’s making those minor clerical corrections for consistency, and we will be sending the corrected version of the attached document to the Council shortly. Thanks to Kathy for spotting the inconsistency, and of course thank you to everyone from the policy support staff for all the work, time and effort you put into this PDP that resulted in all Full Consensus recommendations! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 7, 2015 at 17:47 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Final Report from the PPSAI Policy Development Process Working Group Dear Councilors, Please find attached the Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Policy Development Process Working Group. As you will recall, this PDP was initiated by the Board, and the Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council in October 2013. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and has fully reviewed as well as incorporated, where relevant, community input into its Final Report. On behalf of the WG co-chairs Don Blumenthal, Graeme Bunton and Steve Metalitz, I’m pleased to report that the WG has reached Full Consensus on all of its final recommendations. A motion for the Council to consider and adopt these recommendations will shortly be forthcoming from the Council liaison to the WG. Thank you. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

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

Markup ("redline") of WG Final Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Hello everyone, Please find attached the marked-up version of our Final Report, showing the changes that were made to the last version circulated on 20 November. As noted previously, the changes are those that were distributed by email on 1 December as reflecting the new language of certain WG recommendations in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (and with corresponding language changes made to Section 7 where these recommendations are repeated verbatim). We are continuing to proof-read and format the final clean document, so there may still be a few minor typos and formatting/spacing issues in the attached. However, the co-chairs thought it would be useful for everyone to get to see all the changes that have been made to the Final Report in a single document prior to the deadline later today. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 3

Consensus Call Closed and Thank You
by Graeme Bunton Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Hello All, As of 1pm EST our consensus call has closed, and seeing that no objections or minority statements have been received, we can now consider our report as final with full consensus. The final report and motion will be sent to the GNSO shortly. To be clear, this will include the addition from Holly received today. This ends two years of considerable effort by everyone involved, and the conclusion of this working group is no small feat. The Chairs would like to extend our sincere thanks to everyone who participated for their time, effort, attention and patience. We've worked through some challenging, contentious issues, and have found understanding and compromise. Everyone should be proud of how we've come together and worked awfully hard on this important issue. We'd also like to extend our thanks to Mary, Marika and the rest of ICANN staff who have been extremely supportive to both the Chairs and the working group over the past two years. It's clear we could not have done this without their experience and guidance. Thanks again, Don, Steve and Graeme -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Analytics and Insights Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

3 2

Updated WG recommendations (as numbered in Executive Summary of the Final Report)
by Mary Wong Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached that part of the Executive Summary of the Final Report that contains all the WG¹s numbered recommendations, updated to reflect the latest WG agreements and discussions, including on the call held earlier today. As we have not made any changes to the rest of the Final Report but will do so in strict accordance with any changes to the attached approved by the WG, we thought it would be easier to just send you this document with the suggested updates. Please therefore refer to the full Final Report, as circulated to you on 27 November, for the rest of the Executive Summary and Final Report. For your easy reference, the changes that were made are listed and noted below, in accordance with the agenda for the call today and including the additional points noted by Graeme on the call: > (a) jurisdiction under the Illustrative Disclosure Framework relevant > language in the Annex to the Illustrative Disclosure Framework will be changed > in the Final Report, to say ³Requester and Rights Holder² (this change is > therefore not included in the attached document) > > (b) definitional issues regarding privacy/proxy services changed per > attached document, with the footnote on ³knowingly² based on language > suggested on the mailing list by Steve Metalitz and Don Blumenthal > > (c) customer notification as part of de-accreditation changed per attached > document, using language suggested by Steve Metalitz on the WG call today, > based on Darcy Southwell¹s initial suggestion > > (d) labeling in WHOIS regarding knowledge of registrar of record no change > following explanation on the WG call > > (e) application of TEAC standard to P/P provider¹s designated point of contact > reference to TEAC removed > > (f) requirement of verification in Recommendation #17 - crossreference to > Recommendation #5 added > > (g) language regarding Change of Registrant/IRTP-C changed per attached > document, as explained in email sent to WG following the call > > (h) edits suggested by Holly Riche definition of Affiliate added to > Recommendation #1; Final Report will ensure consistent usage (and > capitalization) of terms like Relay (rather than ³forward²), customer and > registrant. Note, however, that the idea is to use the term ³customer² to > refer to a customer of either a privacy or a proxy service; as such, likening > a customer to a beneficial user may cause confusion and so we recommend > keeping the term as ³customer². Similarly, where the term ³registrant² is > used, it refers to the person/entity that registers a domain name, who may be > a proxy service rather than a customer of one. We will do our best to ensure > that the Final Report uses all these terms consistently and as clearly as > possible. > We hope that the attached changes accurately reflect the WG¹s understanding following our latest discussions. 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 4

"Clean" version of Final Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

For those WG members who wish to review a clean copy of the Final Report. please refer to the attached – as noted below, we are continuing to proof read and correct formatting, spelling and other minor typographical errors so please accept our apologies if some of these minor problems still appear in the attached. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:23 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Markup ("redline") of WG Final Report Hello everyone, Please find attached the marked-up version of our Final Report, showing the changes that were made to the last version circulated on 20 November. As noted previously, the changes are those that were distributed by email on 1 December as reflecting the new language of certain WG recommendations in the Executive Summary of the Final Report (and with corresponding language changes made to Section 7 where these recommendations are repeated verbatim). We are continuing to proof-read and format the final clean document, so there may still be a few minor typos and formatting/spacing issues in the attached. However, the co-chairs thought it would be useful for everyone to get to see all the changes that have been made to the Final Report in a single document prior to the deadline later today. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889

4 3

CORRECTION (Re: Reminder - Consensus Call closing on Monday 7 December)
by Mary Wong Dec. 3, 2015

Dec. 3, 2015

Dear all, Please accept my apologies for a mistake on the time at which our consensus call is to close. The date remains the same Monday 7 December but the time should read 1800 UTC. This will allow us to clean up the Final Report (especially if any changes to the consensus designation need to be made) and to send the report as well as a motion for Council adoption to the Council in time for their December meeting. 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:58 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Reminder - Consensus Call closing on Monday 7 December > Dear WG members, > > This is just a reminder that the consensus call for the Final Report of our > work will close at 23:59 UTC on Monday 7 December 2015. As such, please email > this list with your statement of support, or if there are objections to any of > the final recommendations, your specific objection (and a minority statement > if any), as soon as possible before that deadline. > > FYI and as noted previously, the WG chairs are responsible for designating > consensus levels for each final recommendation. Since many of the > recommendations have not changed from the preliminary recommendations that > were published for public comment back in May, and as those few that have seen > changes were modified based on WG discussion and agreement on the nature of > the changes, the current designation in both the original and updated Final > Report is one of Full Consensus. > > As such, if no objections are received before the deadline, the presumption > will be that the WG consensus remains that of support for the final > recommendations. > > 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

Reminder - Consensus Call closing on Monday 7 December
by Mary Wong Dec. 3, 2015

Dec. 3, 2015

Dear WG members, This is just a reminder that the consensus call for the Final Report of our work will close at 23:59 UTC on Monday 7 December 2015. As such, please email this list with your statement of support, or if there are objections to any of the final recommendations, your specific objection (and a minority statement if any), as soon as possible before that deadline. FYI and as noted previously, the WG chairs are responsible for designating consensus levels for each final recommendation. Since many of the recommendations have not changed from the preliminary recommendations that were published for public comment back in May, and as those few that have seen changes were modified based on WG discussion and agreement on the nature of the changes, the current designation in both the original and updated Final Report is one of Full Consensus. As such, if no objections are received before the deadline, the presumption will be that the WG consensus remains that of support for the final recommendations. 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

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] definitions section
by Metalitz, Steven Dec. 3, 2015

Dec. 3, 2015

PPSAI WG, Per request on this morning's call, attached is a redline of the passage from the "Definitions" section of the recommendations (page 7 of the clean version circulated by Mary). This is the proposal I asked James to consider accepting. I think this proposal minimizes the risk of conflict between our recommendations and the RAA. Per Graeme's request on the call, any feedback welcomed today. Thanks! Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:30 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Hello everyone, Forwarding Vicky's message (below), which does not seem to have made it to the list. From: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler(a)riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 16:02 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "Steven J. Metalitz (met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>)" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps In reviewing the recommendations on p.7, it seems to me that the third sentence of the section copied below is overbroad and unnecessary for the purpose here. o "Registrars are not to knowingly accept registrations from privacy or proxy 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[1]. In this regard, the WG notes that the consequence of this recommendation is that an accredited privacy or proxy service provider that is in good standing with ICANN will therefore not be liable for the actions of their customers. Similarly, an individual or entity that is acting as a privacy or proxy service, but that is not accredited by ICANN or not in good standing, will be considered the registrant of record, and thus responsible for the domain name registration in question." It is not our place to say whether an accredited p/p provider is or is not liable for the actions of its customers. While one would think that in most cases, the accredited p/p provider would not be, I can envision scenarios where the p/p provider would be liable. Given this, either the last two sentences of the section above should be deleted (as the second sentence I think captures the rule for non-accredited entities acting as a p/p service) or the section should be revised to read as follows: o "Registrars are not to knowingly accept registrations from privacy or proxy 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]. In this regard, the WG notes that an individual or entity that is acting as a privacy or proxy service, but that is not accredited by ICANN or not in good standing, will be considered the registrant of record." MARY - since my posts don't always make it to the entire list, can I ask that you please forward it on if it looks like it didn't go through? Thanks! - Vicky ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] Section 3.7.7.3 of the 2013 RAA reads as follows: "Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name." [2] Section 3.7.7.3 of the 2013 RAA reads as follows: "Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name."

8 19