Hi Marika,
To the summary of the meeting in this section, I would recommend
adding the section *between the stars*
"Noted – the WG noted that it would likely support a set of
minimum requirements to be included in the registration agreement
but what those minimum requirements should be is likely to be
derived from the WG’s review and conclusion on some of the other
charter questions, for example requirements for reveal and relay.
As noted above, some of the details concerning rights and
responsibilities are expected to become clear later on in the
process. *But some noted, and there was no objection, that
the overall issues of rights, including access, due process
and national law be adopted as overarching principles in this
"rights and responsibilities" question, Cat B- Q3, and then
revisited and carried forward as specific details are
negotiated of a) registration and access b) relay, and
especially c) reveal. But high level principles should be
adopted here under this broad question.* Some noted
that registrars should retain a certain level of discretion to
deal with P/P registrations for example in the case of transfers –
it should be up to the registrar to decide whether or not to
reject a transfer request for a P/P registration (note: some
registrars currently prohibit the transfer of P/P registrations –
the underlying customer information needs to be revealed in order
to initiate the transfer). It was also suggested that any
principles / requirements should be high-level principles and
allow for innovation and differentiation between providers.
Furthermore it was noted that the deference to national law would
need to be considered (in the jurisdiction of the registrar and
p/p provider. The WG agreed that any rights and/or obligations
should be clearly communicated in the P/P agreement with the P/P
customer."
Best and tx,
Kathy
:
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 andMP3-Recording).
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.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg