I was also present on the call. Jennifer Standiford From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:56 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 04 February 2014 at 1500UTC Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 04 February 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140204-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Don Blumenthal - RySG Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Michele Neylon - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Justin Macy - CBUC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Jim Bikoff - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tatiana Khramstova - RrSG David Heasley - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Steve Metalitz - IPC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Kristina Rosette - IPC Gema Campillos - GAC Carlton Samuels - ALAC Paul McGrady - IPC Darcy Southwell - RrSG Billy Watenpaugh - RrSG Emily Emanual - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roy Balleste - NCUC Stephanie Perrin - NCUC Ben Anderson - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Theo Geurts - RrSG Keith Kupferschmid - IPC Maria Farrell - NCUC Apologies: Statton Hammock - RySG Luc Seufer - RrSG Susan Prosser - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Margie Milam Joe Catapano 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 Peregrine AC Chat transcript PPSAI WG call on the 4th February 2014 Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 4 February 2014 Carlton Samuels:Hi everybody Graeme Bunton:good morning all\ Mary Wong:Hello, we will begin very shortly. Graeme Bunton:oh boy Nathalie Peregrine:please all mute speakers and phones when not speaking Maria Farrell:that was a little steam punk Holly Raiche:Hi Everyone Graeme Bunton:i appreciate that someone can take time from their job at the steel foundry to participate Theo Geurts:lol Don Blumenthal:apparently my mic isn't working.. I will reconnect. Carlton Samuels:Don yes Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon everyone! Carlton Samuels:There was a change this morning; the app requested use of your av subsystem Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has also joined the AC room Kathy Kleiman:Try to consolidate Mary Wong:Note that except for the three bullet points under Termination, the actual numbered questions under Publication and Termination are existing questions from the WG Charter that just got moved. Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the Ac room Phil Marano:Thank you Nathalie. Michele Neylon:now that is NOT me :) Amr Elsadr:If I understand Steve correctly, is he suggesting that we focus on P&P service accreditation and take out the section on publication? If so, I am in favor of that. Mary Wong:If it helps, these were the recommendations from the GNSO-ALAC DT, and the WHOIS RT, on which these questions were based: Mary Wong:From the GNSO-ALAC DT: Registrar responsibility for cancellation under appropriate circumstances of registrations made by privacy/proxy services offered by others for noncompliance with Relay and Reveal Mary Wong:From the WHOIS RT, on Terminating a Customer's Access: Cancel registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations steve metalitz:@Amr, We need to cover EITHER publication OR termination of proxy service for a particular registration. TFor purposes of clarity the first option might be better. Mary Wong: From the WHOIS RT, on cancellation of a customer's access: Cancel registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations Amr Elsadr:@Steve: Thanks. Is publication a charter question? I don't see it there. The word publication is in one of the questions, but referring to an earlier question on reveal. Michele Neylon:we haz echo Michele Neylon:yay Nathalie Peregrine:Ben Anderson has joined the call Tim Ruiz:P/P services cannot take down domain names on their own. The Registrar and Registry do that. Tim Ruiz:In fact, in regards Proxy services, they are actually the registrant. Maria Farrell:I am also wondering why we would extend the work into a new area, viz publication. Kathy Kleiman:Cancellation of a registration in a VOLUNTARY manner Mary Wong:@Steve, that's exactly right as to why the move was made and phrased this way in the Reveal section. Tim Ruiz:Then it is already there, as Steve said. Bladel:Reveal vs. Expose? Amr Elsadr:Reveal vs. Publish. I perceived them to be two different actions. Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx Steve! Kathy Kleiman:Let Tim Ruiz:Reveal - involves only the current requester. Publication is a public reveal. What is Expose? Kathy Kleiman:Let's keep it in Reveal -- where huge discussions will be taking place ! Mary Wong:The EWG status report mentions "reveal" and "unmask" as two different actions. Amr Elsadr:@Tim: Thnks. That's my understanding. Mary Wong:@Tim, @Amr, this WG is using "publication" to mean "unmask", correct? Tim Ruiz:Termination of a P/P provider accreditation should be relatively quick to complete. Just grab that section from the Registrar Accreditation program and modify from there. Tim Ruiz:...and maybe anything applicable from the RAA. Kathy Kleiman:Don, I think there is agreement not to include Publication Tim Ruiz:Actually, I think it would all be in the RAA. Kathy Kleiman:as a new title at this time... Amr Elsadr:@Mary: My understanding of the difference between publish and reveal are as Tim has stated. Unmask is confusing. Will unmasking be to the requestor or to "the world"? steve metalitz:Perhaps "termination" could be labeled "de-accreditation"? Kathy Kleiman:Let's add a few bullet points to Reveal to cover possible other options... Tim Ruiz:@Steve, agree. Mary Wong:@Amr, the EWG uses "unmask" to mean "making the name and contact details of the proxy service customer publicly available in the WHOIS" Stephanie Perrin:I like de-accreditation (or dis-accreditation??) much better.... Termination sounds very final. :-) Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Ah! Thanks. steve metalitz:agree with Don that "publication" is organizational issue not scope. Stephanie Perrin:I have an additional question: are you going to accredit attorneys who act for their clients? Tim Ruiz:If we really want termination, I know a guy in Jersey... Amr Elsadr:I don't understand the organizational issue vs. what's in/out of scope?? steve metalitz:Most (if not all) the questions about "reveal" would also be applicable to "publication" or"unmask" Bladel:And how would the registrar know this? Michele Neylon:I had to drop off and am now on adobe only Stephanie Perrin:You could bind them through contract to the registrar surely, with identical requirements...but good luck enforcing, they could shop registrars. Michele Neylon:i can listen steve metalitz:Q. 5 of the circulated version Paul McGrady:That is a great question. Doesn't seemc contractually possible to be unaccredited yet bound by the same standards. Specifically, ICANN compliance would have no contractual right to ensure compliance with any contractual terms. Marika 2:Tod - there is no #6, do you mean #5? Don Blumenthal:I think that we'll get to the lawyer accredutation issue when we discuss the issues Kathy Kleiman:@Paul, but that creates a real double standard. Mary Wong:I will look up the document history and WG Charter. Kathy Kleiman:Doesn't it? Gema Campillos:Maybe, the last part can be deleted from "that are bound.." Kathy Kleiman:Or Registrants could use non-accredited p/p providers Graeme Bunton:same issue steve metalitz:RAA 2013 forbids registrars from taking registrations from non-accredited providers (once accreditation is in place). Bladel:@steve: Then I think the second part of #5 probably doesn't apply. Gema Campillos:Steve, then the question is not necessary. Marika 2:@James - have I translated your comment correctly in a question? Bladel::) Maria Farrell:On the topic of publication, I still don't see why it is being added into this document. When we tried to correct some very loaded / unbalanced questions a few weeks ago, we were told much of the suggestions were 'out of scope'. But now whole new topics - publicaiton - are being added to the list with not discussion of whether they are *sufficiently* in scope. Maria Farrell:Adding to the chat as my phone line wouldn't let me talk / listen. Can this question pls be acknowledged? Gema Campillos:Agree with J. Bladel on both his last posts. Amr Elsadr:@Maria: +1 Maria Farrell:I'm a bit confused about how we have entirely new sections that seem to be cut from new cloth? Marika Konings:@Maria - the category of publication has been deleted and folded into reveal steve metalitz:The 2013 RAA citation is section 3.14 Maria Farrell:thanks Don, Marika Stephanie Perrin:I promise I will only say this once...the purpose of doing a regulatory impact assessment on this is to determine impact of our actions. If it drives traffic to the non-accredited P/P service providers, we have both driven the profits of legitimate registrars down, and boosted business to the non-accredited. How are you going to enforce the RAA prohibitions, I hope it is in a way that prevents new registrars from starting up. Given that criminal activity is largely of the fly by night variety, you need to figure out how fast enforcement can be exacted before you set in place a whole pile of new rules. Maria Farrell:Marika, I see the category has been added to another. It just seems odd to me that it was so hard to add something 'out of scope' a few weeks ago and seemingly easier to do it today. Marika Konings:@Maria - those questions come from the charter, nothing else was added apart from a new heading (which the WG has been using to organize / categorize the charter questions) Bladel:stephane: An important consideration. And this is true of many issues within ICANN: The registrars who participate are not the problem, but are a "stand in" for those operating in the shadows..... Marika Konings:and which now has been removed upon WG agreement ;-) Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Publication is not a charter question. The word is used in a question, but seems to me to be a mistake, because it is a follow up to a reveal question. Marika Konings:None of the category headings are charter questions - the WG has developed these to try and organize its work. Holly Raiche:At what stage are the questions being sent out to SO/ACs? Don Blumenthal:The charter questions as we got them from the GNSO already went out. Holly Raiche:Thanks Kathy Kleiman:@Mary - New question: did the text inserted by someone re: the Misuse of Whois Data Study get deleted or moved? It was important text, and if it got moved or put in a footnote, great! If deleted, that's a loss... Stephanie Perrin:@Bladel :-) so when and how do we get to practical issues surrounding enforcement? I did not see that as a charter question but it seems to me, as the french say, une question primordiale Maria Farrell:Question re. Singapore - tks a LOT Marika & Mary for the work plan. It would be great to maximise f2f time to advance the work. Any ideas how much time we'll get in singapore? Mary Wong:@Kathy, do you mean about the Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study? That got moved - I don't believe there was a reference to the Misuse Study. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Steve - in part because I think Main Issues now has questions that need the background and work of other areas Marika Konings:@Maria - we'll be requesting 90 minutes Marika Konings:@Steve - for any of the preliminary conclusions the idea would be that these are always circulated onthe mailing list for review & comment Kathy Kleiman:#3 in Main Issues for example - seems very premature for a first discussion... Kathy Kleiman:So I like the idea of reviewing the order of the questions... and then deciding what Category goes first Maria Farrell:how about ietf approach that f2f meeting conclusions are subject to on-list agreement? Mary Wong:@Todd - answer to your earlier question (sorry this took so long). The "knowingly" part of Question I.5 came from the WG Charter - which was phrased as a General Question for the WG to consider as an Additional Issue, and based on the WHOIS RT report referenced in the Staff Paper that was reviewed by the GNSO Council. Maria Farrell:It would be a real shame to limit f2f to a reporting session. Waste of resources Marika Konings:We'll make sure to number also the bullet points so that these can also be reordered if needed Carlton Samuels:Test Michele Neylon:F2f meetings need to be as productive as possible Marika Konings:@Maria - the way most PDP WGs manage their F2F meetings is just start with a 5 minute update for newcomers, then dive into the substance and leave some time at the end for comments / inputs from observers Michele Neylon:I'm not interested in flying half way round the world for the same conversation I can have on a call Kathy Kleiman:@Mary- tx! Michele Neylon:if possible .. Maria Farrell:tks marika, that sounds sensible. I think it would be a real mistake to not discuss substantive or important issues at the f2f, and attempt to come to resolutions, albeit ones that must of course be tested on the list afterwards Don Blumenthal:Michele, you were coming all the way to SG just for us? Marika Konings:@Maria - of course, we could try to carve out more time for the WG meeting, but often we then run into conflicts Maria Farrell:sure, tks Marika Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! Tim Ruiz:Thanks Don. Paul McGrady:Thanks everyone! Kathy Kleiman:Tx Don! Carlton Samuels:Bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks Don. By everybody. Darcy Southwell:Thanks all! Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:tx bye Phil Marano:Thank you, goodbye. Justin Macy:Thanks!