Thanks Holly, all these changes seems sensible to me.  Note that “Affiliated” is defined in footnote 15, borrowing from the RAA definition.  I agree with the suggestion to move this into the definitions section of the report. 

 

Steve Metalitz

 

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:42 PM
To: Mary Wong
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps

 

Folks

 

A few minor editorial changes.  I don’t think they should involve discussion, but will just make things bit clearer.

 

The document refers to the beneficial users of P/P services in several ways: as beneficial user, as Customer (capitalised or not) or registrant.  There should be consistency so my suggestion is that in the definitions section, we define Customer to mean the beneficial user of the service.  And then throughout the document, when we are referring to the Customer of a service, we use the term with a capitalised ‘C’.  When we are talking more generally about registrants, use that term

 

In the document, in many places the term ‘affiliated’ is capitalised but in other places it is not.  My preference is that it not be capitalised since I think the meaning is clear and doesn’t need further explanation.  If others do not agree, then please suggest a definition, and then the definition can be inserted into the definition section and capitalised when used throughout the document.

 

In the discussion around Para 13, the term ‘forward’ is used along with the term Relay.  We have already defined the term ‘Relay’ to mean forwarding, so it is confusing when both terms are used.  I suggest that we NOT use the word forward when what we mean is Relay - it is less confusing.

 

There are also a few minor errors in spelling or formatting which I assume will be picked up before the document is released.

 

Thanks

 

Holly

On 21 Nov 2015, at 9:38 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:



Dear WG members,

 

Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.

 

As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.

 

For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following:

  • All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections  and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report.
  • The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter.
  • On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations.
  • On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG.
  • On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder.
  • On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed.
  • In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers.
  • Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from.

Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!

 

Cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4889

 

 

 

<Updated Draft Fina#4C059F3.docx><Updated Draft Fina#4BCE0E7.docx>_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg