Hi All,
In answering our newest question, Category
B-question 3, I would ask that an expansion of the
NCSG comments be included in the summary of
comments received. NCSG has now commented
extensively on rights a domain name registrant
should have when using a proxy/privacy service --
and our focus has been on two aspects (although
there are more to discuss), namely: a) access to
proxy/privacy services, and b) due process in the
limitation and/or termination of these services.
Access: NCSG submits that in the gTLD system, p/p
is a needed and legitimate service for
noncommercial organizations, including public
interest groups, religious groups, educational
organization, charities, and hobby groups, as well
as individuals, entrepreneurs and small
businesses. We would like to see that right of
access protected and ensured.
Due Process: NCSG submits that the p/p customer
should be assured of the right to engage in a
dialogue with the proxy/privacy service provider
before contact data is released or published (when
legally allowed), and given the opportunity to
show if the request for contact data is intended
to to harm, harass, damage competition or diminish
Freedom of Expression or Assembly rights. Further,
the NSCG comments discussed (as reflected in the
current template) the importance of allowing
Registrars to follow their national laws and
practices and incorporate the privacy, data protection and due
process of ther laws into their p/p contracts
with customers. What is illegal in one
country is not illegal in another country --
be it speech activities, religious activities,
political activities or even comparative
advertising (in which a particular product or
service specifically mentions a competitor by
name for the express purpose of showing why
the competitor is inferior to the product
naming it). These robust differences must be
taking into account when drafting a general
set of accreditation principles for rights and
responsibilities of Registrants.
We respectfully submit there
are many rights, as well as responsibilities,
to consider in this question tomorrow... and
look forward to the discussion.
Best,
Kathy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
In preparation for our
meeting tomorrow, please find attached the
proposed template for Category B – question 3 (What rights
and responsibilities should domain name
registrants that use privacy/proxy services
have? What obligations should
ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service
providers have in managing these rights and
responsibilities? Clarify how transfers,
renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.)
If there is any additional information
that should be added to the background
section, please let me know.
In relation to transfers, renewals and PEDNR
policies, we've started to develop a list of
questions that the WG may need to consider
in relation to these policies. If there are any
additional questions that should be included,
please feel free to suggest. We are hoping that
some of the registrar members will be able to
shed a light on how these issues are currently
handled and whether or not these need to be
factored into the WG recommendations.
- Per the ERRP, 'registrars must notify the
registered name holder of the expiration at
least two times'. Should there be a
requirement for the P/P provider to pass
these notices on to the P/P customer?
- Per the ERRP, 'if a registration is not
renewed by the RAE or deleted by the
registrar, within five days after the
expiration of the registration, the
registrar must transmit at least one
additional expiration notice to the RAE that
includes instructions for renewing the
registration'. Should there be a requirement
for the P/P provider to pass these notices
on to the P/P customer?
- Per the ERRP, 'beginning at the time of
expiration and through the DNS resolution
interruption period described in paragraphs
2.2.2 and 2.2.3, the RAE must be permitted
by the registrar to renew the expired
registration'. What if the underlying
customer wants to renew the registration?
Idem for restoration during the Redemption
Grace Period.
- In relation to the IRTP, should there be
any restrictions concerning transfers of P/P
registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and
conditions require the P/P services to be
removed during the transfer process).
Depending on the response to this question,
all communications in the IRTP currently go
via the transfer contact (Registered Name
Holder / Admin Contact). Should there be any
requirements for this information to also be
communicated to the P/P customer? What
happens if there is a disagreement relating
to the transfer between the P/P provider and
the P/P customer?
Best regards,
Marika
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg