Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 01 December 2015 at 14:30 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-01dec15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03Zqpst0e-2BAhXKoN2NRgTrap-2B8It1Hdq62dge7j3mqmBQ0BunA-3D-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmsLCxXsZWINxaEplcLRoeqDD-2FN1g8PAa5dy5vCZgRhUxb4ahdlAhT9qtDIFpSs-2B5VHs4idZ0o3SmWY6IRWI9RWLmFPdR1DYKyj6ABXLsUpwfYzOYbuoC1JqOht0TclKBPYZ6n82d2a3ytb3if3fgWpmhEvprgojwHrCKA6ymzv70ktDKZ-2B9UYNGKc5586h5ycJ4xyJ5AvJtDANMNhma4-2FB-2B5mmypItpnX4jDnVPv5OqEXS2Jw4HL9YdLT5-2FQh66miFOj-2FHbJoLVtBLRo4RiP6jlK1Nho-2FIkdHPvm4CMlT-2Btz> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> Attendees: Alex Deacon - IPC Brian Cimbolic - RySG Bruce McDonald - IPC Carlton Samuels - At-Large Chris Pelling - RrSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Don Blumenthal - RySG Frank Michlick - Individual Graeme Bunton - RrSG Griffin Barnett- IPC Holly Raiche - ALAC James Bladel - RrSG Jim Bikoff (Sean Phelan)- IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG Luc Seufer - RrSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Paul McGrady - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Roger Carney-RrSG Sara Bockey - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Todd Williams - IPC Theo Geurts - RrSG Vicky Sheckler - IPC Volker Greimann- RrSG Apologies: Sarah Wyld - RrSG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Mike Zupke Mary Wong Terri Agnew ** 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, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 01 December 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call on Tuesday 01 December 2015 Chris Pelling:Afternoon all Theo Geurts:Afternoon folks Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Brian Cimbolic:Hello everyone Bladel:Hope springs eternal. :) Terri Agnew:Philip Corwin is on audio Mary Wong:Document is unsynced and is the redline version Mary Wong:Page 97 Chris Pelling:bad colors for me, so cannot read it Terri Agnew:Kathy Kleiman has joined Mary Wong:@Chris, sorry about that Terri Agnew:Griffin Barnett has joined Mary Wong:This is the language that "binds" the requester in the framework: "7) Where the signatory is not the rights holder, he/she must attest that he/she is an authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and having the authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request, including the authority to bind the rights holder to the limitations on the use of Customer data once disclosed." Mary Wong:Page 8 of the redline Chris Pelling: Hey Mary - Do not worry about the colors :) :) I can listen :p steve metalitz:@Jamesare you proposing entirely new language for the report here? Terri Agnew:Susan Kawaguchi has joined audio Mary Wong:Would defining "knowingly" create issues with the same word used elsewhere e.g. in the RAA? Bladel:Mary - where is it used in the RAA? Holly Raiche:Normally, definitions only apply to the document in which the definition is made Mary Wong:I think it's used in referring to Resellers and PP registrations? Bladel:Agree with Vicky - a footnote citing "actual knowledge" is acceptable. Kathy:Vicky - what sentences? Brian Cimbolic:+1. Also think "knowingly" does not imply "should have known" but can see how clarity might help Terri Agnew:Carlton Samuels has joined Carlton Samuels:Morning all, my apologies for late access. Teaching duties Carlton Samuels:Good Morning Terri Kathy:Isn't this Paul's language? Terri Agnew:Volker Greimann has joined Mary Wong:Wouldn't this create possible issues with 3.7.7 of the RAA about who is the RNH and tehrefore the registrant of record? Kathy:we can get some time to review the new/revised language? Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon has joined Bladel:I believe the defined term is "Registered Name Holder" Mary Wong:This is what 3.7.7 says: "3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record " Carlton Samuels:What would 'registrant of record' be other than the registrant in fact? We have already adopted the meaning of registrant, no? Mary Wong:Steve's suggestion would address the staff concern expressed here. Vicky Sheckler:based on what james is saying, it seems beter to drop the last 2 sentences Mary Wong:In the sense that if our recs here create possible uninteded legal consequences with/for the RAA and its interpretation/application. Todd Williams:@James: why are those two mutually exclusive? Carlton Samuels:Good question: 1) to declare that person scofflaw under PPSAI rules. 2. Accept the registration as that per 3.7.7. Bladel:Fair enough. But then note that the Registrar would have obligations to take action upon reports from ICANN or 3rd parties. Carlton Samuels:The registrar is not then under obligation until they know. Holly Raiche:Wasn't this to do with lawyers who are acting as agents - and if hey are not accredited, then they are the responsible party Carlton Samuels:@Holly: Yes, that was my understanding. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1, that was what I understand as intent! Mary Wong:RAA 3.7.7.3 goes on to say "A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name" Carlton Samuels:@Mary: Yes, also my understanding. It is about accepting responsibility, NOT to drop or otherwise disturb the registration. Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined Carlton Samuels:@James: On dropping the first sentence about 'knowingly', inter alia: Um, well, I could live with that Mary Wong:Page 18, Graeme, of the redline Bladel:@Carlton : Trying to udnerstand what we gain by the first sentence. I think we've uncovered some signifiant unintended consequences for both providers, registrars and law firms by leaving this in. Mary Wong:"Principle 1: A P/P service customer should be notified in advance of de-accreditation of a P/P service provider. The WG notes that the current practice for registrar de-accreditation involves the sending of several breach notices by ICANN Compliance prior to the final step of terminating a registrar's accreditation. While P/P service provider de-accreditation may not work identically to that for registrars, the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent). In particular, the WG notes that, in view of the legitimate need to protect many customers' privacy, the mere publication of a breach notice on the ICANN website (as is now done for registrar de-accreditation) may not be sufficient.." Mary Wong:Darcy's note was about the timing of the notice - we say "during the process or its equivalent." steve metalitz:@Kathy, agree Darcy's proposal stated 30 days and there was general support for it on list. Darcy Southwell:The proposed language was also about the timing - after termination and not during breach.... Kathy:"Principle 1: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective 30 days after notice of termination." Kathy:Darcy's language Michele Neylon:So similar to "suspension" .. ? steve metalitz:Modify Darcy's language as follows: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent) once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective FOR EISTING CUSTOMERS 30 days after notice of termination." L Seufer:suspension doesn't make much sense IMO. Giving a delay to transfer after the termination notice has been served makes more sense steve metalitz:existing CUSTOMERS Kathy:freezing new registration is fine L Seufer:@Kathy not before the actually termination has been decided, right? Darcy Southwell:Agree with adding the language about existing customers. Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ mike - difference btn wind-down transition and a p/p continuing to take on new customers Kathy:+1 Steve's language Mary Wong:The point is to notify customers before the effective date of termiination - can we just put something like that in ie Steve's languge w/o the 30 day note? Kathy:30 days is in RAA - would like to keep it here Luc Seufer:I agree with Steve language too steve metalitz:@Mary, this is an implementation recommendaition. Is it more acceptable if labeled as such? , Bladel:anyone else having difficulty hearing Mary? Mary Wong:Sorry Carlton Samuels:+1 to Steve's Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Mary Wong:Please see comment in chat above Mary Wong:Suggesting we add specific language to say notify customers before termination becomes effective, but not specify 30 days Darcy Southwell:The 30 days is only a recommendation .... Holly Raiche:Agree with Steve Mary Wong:Got it, Steve - thanks Darcy Southwell:Agree wtih Steve's point - the implementation team find reasons to do something different. Mary Wong:Page 10 Carlton Samuels:@James: The RDAP protocol can accommodate this Bladel:@Carlton - Great, so this will be fixed in 10-12 years. Bladel::) Carlton Samuels:@James: :-) Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - fine if RDAP is adopted Bladel:WHOIS or its successor Bladel:RDDS Luc Seufer:and only if registrar has knowledge about it. It's not because it's feasible that it will be, registrar needs to be aware of it. steve metalitz:@Don, possibly a footnote thatreferences to Whois also capture succeesor registration data services to extgent possible. Chris Pelling:WHOIS <> RDDS Carlton Samuels:It would solve the long involved - and expensive - process they now go thru to get 'get ot of jail' cards from violating national laws. Michele Neylon:Carlton - that's a different topic I think? Luc Seufer:fair enough Mary Wong:Yes Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Different topic, yes. Same tool for response for sure. Luc Seufer:then just don't mention TEAC but abuse point of contact Kathy:similar? volker greimann:teac has no similarity Luc Seufer:Volker's follow up was very clear Mary Wong:@Steve, exactly volker greimann:abuse contact would be the better simile Luc Seufer:then keep capable and auhtorised and remove TEAC Mary Wong:The TEAC ref was in the Initial Report - at the time the WG wanted a point of reference - for the standard, not the process. Chris Pelling:breaking up steve metalitz:Sorry cut off again will dial bakc in Terri Agnew:Steve has disconnected from audio Mary Wong:The wording is "capable and authorized ... a standard similar to the TEAC", per Steve's comment earlier. Luc Seufer:sorry reading a document multiple times and you don't notice things at one point. volker greimann:mary, please remove teac Mary Wong:We say "designated point of contact" volker greimann:teac is to defined to every minute detail to be applicable here Terri Agnew:Steve is back on audio Darcy Southwell:TEAC is a very specific contact and should not be used here volker greimann:otoh, teac contact details are only available to other registrars. so if we model this contact on teac, it would only be available to p/p providers? i like this after all Bladel:That's fine. Mary Wong:The intent was not to import the TEAC process - so if the WG wants to keep it as capable and authorized it wouldn't change the intent. Mary Wong:Dropping the refe to TEAC, I mean Bladel:page? Mary Wong:Page 15 (bottom) Mary Wong:Of the redline Mary Wong:Oops sorry, top of 16 Luc Seufer:"to perform the verification or cause to perform" Mary Wong:We already cross refer to the actual verification/validation rec we make elsewhere - I believe Steve suggested additionally that we also say "Rec #5 above". Luc Seufer:exactly Steve Darcy Southwell:Agree Luc Seufer:agreed Mary Wong:Got it Luc Seufer:if you don't try... ;-) Mary Wong:@Holly, I got yours in notes Mary Wong:So yes Bladel:But noteworthy, in that high fees would be prohibitive for accreditation, and more P/P services would remain unaccredited. Stephanie Perrin:or alternatively, access to P/P services might become more difficult Bladel:Good catches, Holly. Stephanie Perrin:Nothing we recommend should be construed as a green light to increasing the price of P/P services Kathy:+1 Stephanie Kathy:Would be good to have a note on this. Carlton Samuels:@Holly:+1 Carlton Samuels:@Stepanie: +1 Stephanie Perrin:@Holly +1, very sensible suggestions. Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie +1 Amy Bivins:The Transfer Policy defines a change as the following: 1.1.3 "Material Change" means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes:1.1.3.1 A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be merely a typographical correction;1.1.3.2 Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number;1.1.3.3 Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address. Mary Wong:In other words, any typographical change = Material Change. Mary Wong:Though presumably a registrar can of course in the first instance determine if a change is or is not typographical in nature. Mary Wong:But once it's determined to be a non-typographical change then it would be considered a Material Change triggering the lock. Mike Zupke:I got bumped off the call, so apologies I can't respond by voice Mike Zupke:But to be clear, the IRTP C implementation is done Stephanie Perrin:I can see why James wants to move this discussion to the transfer policy area, but this seems like a fundamental issue for the customer. Needs to be at least referenced. Kathy:Happy to take James up on his offer - and we'll report back to the WG Mike Zupke:This was the end of the discussion of where we ended up on the PP service being considered a material change: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-impl-irtpc-rt/msg00189.html Bladel:So a single (semi-retired) partipcant's opinion was taken by Staff to overrule all industry voices on this point? Mike Zupke:There was also a call in which that was discussed @James Kathy:Seeking quick confirmation that agreement is a personal agreement of participants in the WG, not an official statement of the SGs. Is that right? Vicky Sheckler:going back to the paragraph on p 8 discussed near the beginning of the call, upon consideration, the first sentense should be kept (w/ the footnot on actual knowledge) and delete the 3rd sentence. Stephanie Perrin:Sorry, this is important and needs to be discussed here so we can understand the implications. Vicky Sheckler:sorry my typing is so awful Mary Wong:yes WG members participate as individuals Bladel:@Mike - there were numerous calls where that was discussed. Stephanie Perrin:My comment is with reference to the material change issue, Kathy:Tx Mary Stephanie Perrin:I would like an opportunity to re-read the document with all the changes in, notably Holly's recommendations on consistency of terminology. ONe never knows what one might see after the document is cleaned up. Holly Raiche:Then we still have an issue bout lawyers? Need to think this through? Michele Neylon:I need to drop - bye all Kathy:Steve - could you please post that proposal to the list after the call. I think I am following it, but it would be good to see it in writing... tx! Philip Corwin:I must depart for a BC call starting in 4 minutes Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - we need to work through the lawyers issue once we see what the changes are Kathy:@Holly - agreed Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I have another meeting, bye! Mary Wong:We will do our best - we are at meetings in LA but will try to get things to you all as requested ASAP today. Stephanie Perrin:Holly's points? Bladel:Thanks, Mary. I'm headed to airport in 2 hours, but ping me if I can hlep. Mary Wong:Yes, noted Stephanie Perrin:yes thanks Mary Wong:Thanks James Holly Raiche:@ Stepphanie - My editorials were in an earlier issue - now, my issues are implications for lawyers of changes discussed today Paul McGrady:thanks! Darcy Southwell:Thank you, all! Mary Wong:Bye everyone Kathy:Tx Graeme, by all! Carlton Samuels:Thanks all Carlton Samuels:Bye