I omitted the current definitions relating to Privacy & Proxy Services that are being used in the temporary specification attached to the 2013 RAA: 1.1 "P/P Customer" means, regardless of the terminology used by the P/P Provider, the licensee, customer, beneficial user, beneficiary, or other recipient of Privacy Services and Proxy Services. 1.2 "Privacy Service" is a service by which a Registered Name is registered to its beneficial user as the Registered Name Holder, but for which alternative, reliable contact information is provided by the P/P Provider for display of the Registered Name Holder's contact information in the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent services. 1.3 "Proxy Service" is a service through which a Registered Name Holder licenses use of a Registered Name to the P/P Customer in order to provide the P/P Customer use of the domain name, and the Registered Name Holder's contact information is displayed in the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent services rather than the P/P Customer's contact information. 1.4 "P/P Provider" or "Service Provider" is the provider of Privacy/Proxy Services, including Registrar and its Affiliates, as applicable. This may be a good starting point for the WG when it comes to agreeing on working definitions for these and other relevant terms. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:58 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up actions from the call yesterday
Hello Kathy and everyone, and thanks for following up. I was going to send another email on the points you raise below, as I thought it would be easier to separate the imminent question of SO/AC/SG/G input on the original Charter questions, and the more general discussion (including your specific points) regarding modification of the Charter questions. Hopefully the following clarifications are helpful:
- On the definition of Privacy & Proxy Services, ICANN has consistently used the same definition for some time, including across all the GNSO-commissioned Whois studies. These definitions were included in the Definitions, Terms and Excerpts document that was prepared for this WG and that is up on the WG wiki under Background Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/XSWfAg. These definitions are consistent with the usage employed by the Expert Working Group (EWG) in its status update of November 2013: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/status-update-1... ov13-en.pdf (which is also up on the WG wiki).
- On Relay & Reveal, while there is no succinct ICANN definition, descriptions of these were developed in the original 2009 working definitions developed for the GNSO and used in the Terms of Reference for a proposed Privacy/Proxy Relay & Reveal Study (which ultimately was authorized as a Pre-Feasibility Survey due to issues relating to accuracy and response rates for a full study). These are consistent with the usage employed by the EWG in its status update.
- On the language in the Charter question relating to revealing customer identities "for this specific purpose", the Issues Chart in the Staff Paper prepared for the GNSO Council as it deliberated the initiation of this PDP may make its usage clearer. Note that all the Charter questions were taken basically word-for-word from this Chart. The Staff Paper is also on the WG wiki (under Background Documents), and the Issues Chart can be found in Section VII of the Paper. The particular question you noted relates to revealing customer identities for the purpose of responding to cease and desist letters in a timely manner.
More generally, WG members may also find it helpful to note that one of the agreed tasks for the WG is to further develop working definitions based on previous discussions and the prior work referenced above.
Staff had suggested sending out the letters and templates "as is" (as regards the language of the Charter questions) in order to obtain SO/AC/SG/C feedback as early as possible in the WG process. As such, we thought that separately collating the suggestions that Kathy, Gema and John made yesterday (and which continue to be discussed by the WG) into a separate document for further WG discussion would be the best way to move forward on both fronts. However, should the WG prefer to defer this request until you have had the time and opportunity to agree on revised wording and additional questions, we urge that a deadline for this discussion be set soon so that solicitations for feedback are not further delayed.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:22 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up actions from the call yesterday
Hi All, I don't think my edits were all substantive ones. There is a lot of information required to answer these questions, and I was advising that we use our combined expertise as a WG to assist the recipients so they can respond quickly and fully, by:
a) incorporating definitions of p/p providers, and reveal and relay terms b) supplementing questions a bit further to include nuances that appear to be missing but on which input is key as a clear part of the question being asked (e.g., re: noncommercial organizations as discussed in our meeting yesterday) c) some of the additional holes identified by Volker on the list today.
I also wrote to staff privately with questions about bullet points that appear ambiguous, but did not receive an answer. So let me ask the WG:
· Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to reveal customer identities for this specific purpose?
What does this mean, and what is "this specific purpose?" Perhaps a drafter would know?
It was my understanding based on the call yesterday that we had been asked for our input, and staff would like to receive edits and suggestions by Friday, with compilation & consideration on the Tuesday call. In the interest of clarity, I would like to recommend that we follow this course.
Best, Kathy
:
Dear all,
As discussed on the call yesterday, here are two action items for your review.
(1) The first concerns finalizing the letters to be sent to the SO/AC Chairs, and the SG/Constituency Input Template to be sent to SG/Cs. Attached please find a CLEAN version of both the SO/AC invitation letters and the SG/C template for input that we are requesting from individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SG/Cs).
Please note that these are the same versions as were discussed during the meeting earlier today, i.e. reflecting WG Chair Don Blumenthal's edits as of 18 December 2013. This is because the more recent suggestions made by Kathy, Gema and John (and for which a good discussion is ongoing onlist) go largely toward proposed substantive modification of the original Charter questions. The only change that has been made is the addition of a sentence to the SO/AC letter, at WG Vice Chair Steve Metalitz's suggestion, that reflects some of that ongoing discussion.
We suggest that for those types of substantive edits, staff compile the suggestions into a separate document that the WG can review at a subsequent meeting, for two reasons. First, the GNSO PDP Manual specifies that SG/C input should be sought at an "early stage" in the PDP, and that SG/Cs have 35 days to respond to a formal solicitation for input. Assuming the letters and template go out at the end of this week or early next, the due date for feedback will be mid-February such that the WG will likely only be reviewing the feedback six weeks from now at the earliest. Secondly, the SG/C input template as drafted and with Don's edits reproduces the actual Charter questions and any substantive modification of these should first be discussed by the WG prior to circulation, since they may constitute additional issues for which the WG may need to go back to the Council.
(2) The second action item concerns Steve's proposal that the WG request that ICANN staff ask those registrars subject to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) to provide links to information that is either published on their website, or on that of their privacy or proxy service, relating to the terms and conditions of those services and a "description of procedures" employed by the service in question for a number of functions, including receipt of complaints of abuse, relay and reveal policies, conditions for termination of service, and customer support. Although some of this information is also being sought by the EWG's proposed questionnaire, having the links provided to this WG may be helpful in addition to the aggregated responses that the EWG plans to prepare to share with the group.
Please feel free to provide suggestions and revisions to the letter and template to the list, and to indicate whether or not you support Steve's suggestion (or not).
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai- pdp-wg