August 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Compilation of P/P provider responses
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows: 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful? 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you¹d like to add to a response you¹d provided previously, please send it along and I¹ll make sure it gets added to this document. Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

9 11

Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 1 September 2015
by Mary Wong Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 1 September is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Report from Sub Team 2 (on Section 1.3.3) and discussion 3. Review of Public Comment Review Tool Part 3 (circulated on 21 August) for issue spotting 4. Next steps Sub Team 2¹s wiki page containing its draft documents as well as recordings and transcripts of its meetings can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/0YZCAw 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 25 August 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 25 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-25aug15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton RrSG Val Sherman IPC Kathy Kleiman NCSG Stephanie Perrin NCSG Terri Stumme BC Todd Williams IPC Sara Bockey RrSG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick Individual Steve Metalitz – IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Sarah Wyld – RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG James Bladel RrSG David Hughes - IPC Phil Corwin – BC James Gannon NCUC Holly Raiche ALAC Paul McGrady IPC Dick Leaning, Individul Susan Prosser RrSG Susan Kawaguchi – BC Vicky Scheckler IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Luc Seufer RrSG David Cake- NCSG Carlton Samuels – ALAC Griffin Barnett- IPC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Nathalie Peregrine ** 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, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 25 August 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 25th August 2015 Holly Raiche:So how was the tea? Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Haven't tried it yet, still too hot James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hi All, good afternoon from rainy Ireland Stephanie Perrin:Should we all buy new raincoats before Dublin, James? Sounds wet.... Holly Raiche:Does it ever not rain in Ireland! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes please bring waterproof clothing in October James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Haha basicaally no =) Alex Deacon:morning all. Dick Leaning:noted :-) James Bladel:Sorry, but I cannot hear Alex. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Very quiet Holly Raiche:Sounds almost under water Nathalie Peregrine:Alex Deacon's comments might not be captrued on the recordings, he is too faint Nathalie Peregrine:*captured Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Subteam site: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691534 James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes I think that the important thing here is the differentiation between a request and a legal requirement (Eg. Nat Sec Letter, Gag order) steve metalitz:Note that the draft recommendations Val is describing appear in the summary section of the document beginning on page 11 Alex Deacon:summary is that I plan to send a draft set of recommendations and proposed updates to the report for Question 1 for review this week. Mary Wong:Thanks, Steve - apologies, I should have noted that for everyone! Stephanie Perrin:lost sound for quite a while there Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Just you Stephanie, i think. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:And Privacy law may also apply in some jusrisdictions James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Alex I think your mic is open Luc Seufer:I am hearing an echo and a washing machine Mary Wong:Think it's gone now, not sure who or what it was Alex Deacon:should be closed now. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Perfect thanks! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I have discovered swiping right on a macbook trackpad now goes back to the last page loaded oops! Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Can we make sure that lands on Sub team 3s plate Mary? Mary Wong:Got it James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes steve metalitz:For example our recommendations 6-8 deal with disclosure of p/p service provider policies. The tentative recommendations from the subgroup fon qs. 2 and 3 support these. steve metalitz:subgroup on 2 and 3 Dick Leaning:James is correct- same type of thing in the UK James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes essentially we shouldnt get invoved in national law issues. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Just point them to lookat their own jurisdictions steve metalitz:@Stephanie can you give a specific example of a case where providers would be required by law to disclose to customer that there had been a request from law enforcement? Holly Raiche:I think what we are doing is have aa baseline set of rules - providers can have terms of service aove that Holly Raiche:'above' Stephanie Perrin:yes, needs to be applicable law...includes international James Bladel:No objection to Paul's change. I thin kthat mirrors language in the RAA. Holly Raiche:applicable is fine Luc Seufer:I am fine with applicable it's more comprehensive Paul McGrady:Thanks! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Works for me James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Understood , I would oike to see providers enabled to make a call on some way of blanking out details when they provider determines its a genuine user but still wants to terminate. Luc Seufer:a sentence with a "reasonnable" in bold letter comes to mind Mary Wong:@Phil, the WG's prelim rec #8 says providers must disclose in ToS "specific grounds upon which a customer’s details may be Disclosed or Published or service suspended or terminated" Kathy Kleiman:@Steve: in response to the question to Stephanie above, there are privacy laws that require consent of the customer/patron/client before certain information is disclosed to law enforcement (especially where LE is operating without a court order). In those cases, the customer would be notified (by law) James Bladel:Sorry.... steve metalitz:@Kathy, thanks, can you provide a citation? James Bladel:Yield to the queue James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:https://dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1467&ad=1#5. James Bladel:Only if your P/P provider violated their accreditation agreement. Stephanie Perrin:How does one prove that they violated it? steve metalitz:WG Rec. 8 also requires provider to spell out whether customer is notified of disclosure request. Stephanie Perrin:I think that just as there are allegations that bogus proxy service providers exist to hide crooks, bogus PP providers may crop up to entrap Val Sherman:Yes Val Sherman:sorry - -that was responding to Graeme Stephanie Perrin:This is why we need some kind of robust appeal mechanism, and not rely on contract law in each jurisdiction as discussed in the earlier question Holly Raiche:I hink we have to be careful to say LEA in the provider's jurisdiction Volker A. Greimann:Indeed, but there is no guarantee that the malware /spam/etc is distributed by the domain owner Volker A. Greimann:in most cases, it is likely a hacked wordpress Kathy Kleiman:@Steve: agree these are difficult questions without easy answers (non-LE/non-IP) -- but neither are they "implementation details" for ICANN staff. So another group would need to develop this through the PDP process... Stephanie Perrin:An LEA has to provide lawful authority to prevent disclosure to the individual in many jurisdictions. Regrettably, it is not always the case that the offiicer making the request is necessarily doing so according to the letter of the law. This is why it is important to spell out best practices so that providers will at least be aware of what they should be requestioning in terms of authority, according to applocable law. Obviousl y Stephanie Perrin:this does not apply so much to the large providers. Stephanie Perrin:That was requesting, of course, sorry James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes just need to keep tying everyhting together as we work along through the subteams Mary Wong:Sub Team 2 Mary Wong:On SEction 1.3.3 (online financial transactions) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:thanks all Paul McGrady:great call! Luc Seufer:Merci Mary Wong:Thanks Sub Team 1 and everyone! Val Sherman:Thanks all James Bladel:Thanks

1 0

Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 25 August 2015
by Mary Wong Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday 25 August is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Final report from Sub Team 1 (on Section 1.3.2 of the WG¹s Initial Report) (NOTE: updated summaries to be circulated shortly) 3. Discussion of issues identified by Sub Team 1 4. Identification of issues for further WG consideration arising from public comments received to WG Preliminary Recommendations #16-20 (see WG Public Comment Review Tool Part 3, circulated on 21 August) 5. Next steps As updated reports are received from Sub Team 1 and other Sub Teams, they will be posted on each respective Sub Team¹s wiki page. Sub Team 1¹s wiki page with all current drafts, call transcripts etc. can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/zoZCAw Although not on the agenda for the WG call tomorrow, attached is a document that lists all the issues identified so far by various WG members as possibly meriting further WG discussion, arising from review of the comments received and documented in Parts 1 & 2 of the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool. As further issues (if any) continue to be identified from these as well as the remaining Parts 3 & 4 of the Review Tool (both circulated on 21 August), we will update this list to facilitate WG reference and discussion when the WG begins to finalize its recommendations for the Final Report. 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

Last call for Issue-Spotting on Part 2 plus New Comments to Review (Parts 3 & 4)
by Mary Wong Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

Dear WG members, This is a last call for any issues that you would like to bring to the WG¹s attention concerning Part 2 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (first circulated on 10 August), similar to the approach we adopted for issue-spotting in Part 1. Please send these to the email list for consideration at the next WG call as soon as you can, but no later than Monday (a day before the call) if at all possible. Please also find attached two documents - (1) Part 3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool, containing excerpts from public comments sent directly to the public comment forum and responses to the online questions template that cover all the WG's remaining preliminary recommendations aside from those being analyzed by the Sub Teams (i.e. Preliminary Recommendations #16-20); and (2) Part 4 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool, containing those comments and suggestions made by commenters and template responders that were not specifically framed as responses to particular WG recommendations. Part 4 also contains two additional elements, viz. a list of the types of concerns raised by signatories to the Save Domain Privacy petition (much of which is also reflected in many of the general comments received in the public comment forum), and a list of commenters who supported or endorsed other commenters¹ submissions. While this Part 4 may be of particular usefulness to Sub Team 4, we attach it here to facilitate the WG's review of all the remaining comments not otherwise summarized in other parts of the Tool. These two documents are the last in the series of documents that comprise the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool for our Initial Report, not including the additional documents that were prepared for the various Sub Teams that will also form part of the record for the Final Report. I should point out that some of the comments in these two documents include some strong language, but we have chosen to leave them in as they were sent in the same way as comments that used less robust language; I hope that is all right. 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

11 15

Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
by Mary Wong Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG¹s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG. >From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration: * Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of ³law enforcement authority² as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a ³last call² for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate. Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call. 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

10 18

Company Disclosures - Irish Case
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

One of the arguments some people put forward against privacy / proxy is one of “transparency” Under Irish law limited companies (not businesses / sole traders) have disclosure obligations on their website(s) These do NOT apply to whois “Every limited liability company which has a website is also required to display either on its homepage or to be identified on its homepage, a readily accessible webpage on which the following appear: the name and legal form of the company the place of registration of the company and the number with which it is registered the address of the registered office of the company in the case of a company exempt from the obligation to use the company type (Companies Limited by Guarantee/Designated Activity Companies) as part of its name, the fact that it is such a company. in the case of a company which is being wound up, the fact that it is being wound up if the share capital of a company is mentioned on the website, the reference must be to the paid-up share capital" And https://www.cro.ie/Registration/Company/Incidental-Obligations/Letterheads So you will find Irish companies that are using proxy / privacy on the whois but who publish all their contact details on their website(s) You’ll also notice that many of the European registrars (myself included) have our company details in our email signatures - whereas most Non-EU based companies don’t …. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

7 16

Feedback from ICANN Compliance on the LEA definition in the RAA
by Mary Wong Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Dear WG members, Staff has consulted our colleagues in the Compliance Department on the question whether there has been any issue raised concerning the scope and meaning of the term ³law enforcement authority² (LEA) in the 2013 RAA. They have informed us that very few complaints have been received on Section 3.18.2 of the RAA, and that to the extent there has been any confusion, most of it is the general public thinking they qualify under Section 3.18.2 (e.g. expecting 24 hour action by the registrar), or LEA in one jurisdiction claiming a longer reach than they may possess (e.g. police in Country A making a request of a registrar based in Country B). From their experience, the term has not really led to any controversies, and any confusion has been resolved sufficiently through the processing of the complaint itself. We hope this is helpful. 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 18 August 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 18 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-18aug15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton RrSG Val Sherman IPC Kathy Kleiman NCSG Stephanie Perrin NCSG Terri Stumme BC Todd Williams IPC Griffin Barnett- IPC Sara Bockey RrSG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick Individual Steve Metalitz – IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Sarah Wyld – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Rudi Vansnick – NPOC James Bladel RrSG David Hughes - IPC Carlton Samuels – ALAC Phil Corwin – BC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Paul McGrady IPC Apologies : Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG Don Blumenthal - RySG James Gannon NCUC Holly Raiche ALAC Michele Neylon - RrSG Marika Konings -Staff ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Nathalie Peregrine ** 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, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 18 August 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference on Tuesday, 18 August 2015. James Bladel:Good Morning! I need to finish up another issue for the next 5-7 minutes. Will rejoin then. Thanks! Graeme Bunton:You're maybe just a hint quiet Steve. Nathalie Peregrine:Terri Stumme and Kathy Kleiman are on the audio bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:David Hughes is on the audio bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Corwin has joined the audio bridge stephanie Perrin:Can you up your volume please Steve, can barely hear Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has joined the AC room Osvaldo Novoa:Hello, sorry I am late. Graeme Bunton:My understanding with 11 is that James' concern was understood and accepted Kathy Kleiman:Is there a question 14? Mary Wong:Reminder that the "plain" Yes and No answers are the count of those that did not put in additional comments. Those that did are listed individually and are thus not included in this count (e.g. of 36 responders to Q15). Nathalie Peregrine:Roger Carney has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett is on the audio bridge Rudi Vansnick:@Stephanie: + 1 as i joined recently this WG I need more time to go through all archives and history of what has been done till now Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the bridge Carlton Samuels:Morning all James Bladel:TEAC is a good model. stephanie Perrin:That is truly heroic, Rudi! Kathy Kleiman:Question 11 is really question 11 and 14? Carlton Samuels:I can't hear Steve at all Kathy Kleiman:OK - thanks! stephanie Perrin:Morning Carlton! Kathy Kleiman:Tx - appreciate it Carlton Samuels:Still cannot hear Steve Carlton Samuels:Hi Steph Nathalie Peregrine:@ Carlton, I hear him fine on AC audio and audio bridge, would you like a dial out? Mary Wong:@Carlton, I can hear him well too, if that helps. Carlton Samuels:Hi Nathalie. Thanks all the same but not in a place to take it. Carlton Samuels:I hear everybody else just fine stephanie Perrin:Me too, I have a hard time hearing him. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:No problem hearing Steve through Adobe Connect for me Nathalie Peregrine:Paul McGrady has joined the AC room Volker Greimann:Steve is more silent than other speakers Paul McGrady:Sorry to be late to the call. This morning did not work out as I planned! Kathy Kleiman:Hi Paul - welcome. Subteam 4 has presented - big picture of our plans and approach Volker Greimann:The authority of the complainant should be easily verifyable by looking at the legal grant of authority Volker Greimann:such is not the case for a backdoor authorization Carlton Samuels:@Graeme Isn't your angst about lacking due process? Paul McGrady:Thanks Kathy! Carlton Samuels:..and thus, not about definition of 'law enforcement' but evidence of 'due process'? Kiran Malancharuvil 2:What is backdoor authority? It is common in the United States to contract out the work of government/LE... would that be "backdoor"? Graeme Bunton:Point taken re: competing standards Kiran Malancharuvil 2:They wouldn't have a regulatory or legislative mandate? Kiran Malancharuvil 2:But would be contracted and would be operating under a transfer of powers. Mary Wong:Will do, Steve. Volker Greimann:Kiran: Exactly, I am looking for legislative or other regulatory authority, i.e. easily verifyable Kiran Malancharuvil 2:I'm missing what you're saying "exactly" about. Exactly as in it would have to be a clear letter of authority? Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Or exactly you would consider this backdoor? Kathy Kleiman:From RAA:3.18.2 Registrar shall establish and maintain a dedicated abuse point of contact, including a dedicated email address and telephone number that is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive reports of Illegal Activity by law enforcement, consumer protection, quasi-governmental or other similar authorities designated from time to time by the national or territorial government of the jurisdiction in which the Registrar is established or maintains a physical office. Well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to these contacts must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report. In responding to any such reports, Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:MUTE YOUR SPEAKERS if you're not talking James Bladel:mute microphones please Mary Wong:Definition now pasted into the right hand side Notes pod. Carlton Samuels:I think the SP role is to first establish a sense that 'due process' was observed. Due process in context means some standard of evidence and adjudication from which an action can be adduced. Graeme Bunton:Interesting idea James James Bladel:Anything that captures the "linkage" between the two docs. Kathy Kleiman:Sorry Mary, what other definitions or interpretations? Kathy Kleiman:Not a blanket rule; Carlton Samuels:What is required is for a response to be 'well founded'! Darcy Southwell:Case by case is probably more appropriate. Mary Wong:@Kathy, I meant where the report refers to other terms and standards, e.g. IRTP, Whois Accuracy Spec, TEAC, etc. Darcy Southwell:Agree with James that the linkage to RAA 3.18 definition is important. Differing definitions will pose significant implementation challenges for companies who operate as a registrar and a P/P provider. Philip Corwin:Agree with james that coordinating the definition of govt. agency for RAA and PPSAI purposes seems like a logical idea. Paul McGrady:Thanks Steve. Thanks Mary! Mary Wong:That's right, Steve.

1 0

Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 18 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 18 August, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Consideration of issues arising from Part 1 of the WG Public Comments Review Tool dated 20 July (see emails from Steve and me below for the issues to be noted) 3. Consideration of issues arising from Part 2 of the WG Public Comments Review Tool dated 7 August (sent to WG on 9 August, attached again for easy reference) 4. Status report from Sub Team 4 on Additional Topics (co-convenors: Kathy Kleiman & Paul McGrady) 5. Next steps Please note that for Agenda Item #3, the suggested approach is the same as what we adopted for Part 1 of the Review Tool, i.e. to spot issues for further consideration by the WG. To that end, it will be helpful if WG members are able to individually go through the attached Tool before tomorrow, so that you can raise those issues as Steve (who will be chairing this week) goes through the document on the call. 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: "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com> Date: Friday, August 14, 2015 at 17:50 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations > Pursuant to Mary¹s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised > in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for > possible consideration by the WG: > > 3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to > label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the > benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31) > > 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward > all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, > 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all > disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) > > 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration > cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) > > In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (³law enforcement > authority² definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied > from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not > this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., > have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a > ³quasi-governmental entity² should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with > its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)? > > 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: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM > To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary > recommendations > > > Dear WG members, > > > > As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions > for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG¹s > Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed > by the broader WG. > > > > From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG > consideration: > * Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy > registration services for their clients other than as a primary business > offering; > * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of ³law > enforcement authority² as including quasi-governmental and other entities > Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have > been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a ³last call² > for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations as such, please > send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also > indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as > raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call > today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment > rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as > appropriate. > > > > Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next > call. > > > > 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 > > > > > > >

2 1