Thanks Marika for your prompt response.  The footnote looks fine to me.  I would also be comfortable with changing the word “revised” in the footnote to “revisited,” in accordance with your message below.

 

Steve

 

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:57 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template Category B - question 3

 

Hi Steve,

 

Apologies for not calling it out in the document – I've added it now as a footnote to the recommendation (see attached) also noting that the preliminary recommendation will be revisited in due time. Does this address your concern? 

 

Per Volker's comment, I've highlighted that this view was shared by 'some' WG members, however, until we get to finalising the recommendations and specifying the level of support (or non-support) it is probably not necessary yet to specify who those 'some' are?

 

Best regards,

 

Marika

 

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com>
Date: Monday 14 April 2014 15:45
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template Category B - question 3

 

Hi Marika,

 

I believe that at the beginning of the April 8 call there was discussion about including in the preliminary conclusion on Question B-2 the view of a number of members of the WG that the minimum verification or validation standards for accredited services would need to exceed those applicable to non-proxy registrations, but that this view could be affected by the outcome of discussions regarding relay and reveal requirements (e.g., re the speed of reveal).  It does not appear that the template for question B-2 has been supplemented to reflect this discussion.  Could staff please do so?  Thanks. 

 

Steve Metalitz

 

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:45 PM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template Category B - question 3

 

Dear All,

 

Following our call on Tuesday, please find attached the updated template for Cat B – Q 3 which aims to capture the main points of discussion as well as a proposed preliminary conclusion based on the deliberations to date ('The WG recommends that any rights, responsibilities and obligations for registrants as well as privacy/proxy providers would need to be clearly communicated in the registration agreement, including any specific requirements applying to transfers and renewals. However, further details as to what minimum requirements for such rights, responsibilities and obligations may be will need to be further discussed by the WG following its review of other charter questions'). If I've missed anything or you have any proposed edits, feel free to share your suggestions with the mailing list.

 

As noted during the call, further input and discussion will be required in relation to the second part of the charter question: clarify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply? Below you will find our initial attempt to identify some of the questions that may need to be addressed in this regard. We hope that WG members, and especially registrars, will be able to add to this list and/or provide some initial thoughts and suggestions. We'll kick off the meeting next week with a short introduction to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), but in the meantime you may already want to review this presentation that was provided by James Bladel for one of the IRTP WGs (Powerpoint, Transcript and MP3-Recording).

 

Best regards,

 

Marika

 

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Date: Monday 17 March 2014 12:40
To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - template Category B - question 3

 

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