Dear WG members,

After consultation with the WG chairs, we would like to propose the following as topics that we thought would benefit from further and more in-depth discussion during the WG’s upcoming face-to-face facilitated session in Los Angeles on Friday 10 October.

Please reply (off list to me is fine) with your top two choices of preferred topics – note that the last option also allows anyone to add a topic (based on the group’s Preliminary Conclusions and templates to date, and following the Charter questions and agreed categories A-G) that is not specifically listed below. Staff will compile a list of the top three topics selected by the most WG members for discussion at the 10 October session.

1. What rights/responsibilities and obligations should be communicated by P/P service providers to customers/registrants with regard to transfers and renewals of domain name registrations? (from Category B Question 3 – see attached report from the Transfers Issues sub-team (James and Kathy); the WG Template including Preliminary Conclusions can be reviewed at https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) 

2. Further discussion on Category E – Relay (see WG Templates including Preliminary Conclusions at https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg; specifically, the three remaining “open questions”, i.e.:

(a) Should providers be required to forward hard copy notices to registrants/customers, on request, in cases where electronic communications are known to be undeliverable?
(b) Should providers be permitted to charge a reasonable fee to forward non-electronic communications that incur a cost to do so (this could include monetary costs such as charges for registered mail and/or other resource costs such as man-hours to review/strip out personal information from a communication)?
(c) If a provider chooses not to forward an allegation of illegal activity, should there be an obligation for a provider to inform a requestor when the provider does not forward its request?

3. Further discussion on Category F– Reveal (specific questions TBD depending on extent of WG discussions between now and 10 October; see draft WG Templates and current Preliminary Conclusions at
https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) 

4. What aspects of the current temporary P/P specification in the 2013 RAA should be retained and/or expanded for the accreditation program? What is not in the current specification but should be? (See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy)

5. What are the business practices that a P/P provider should disclose to potential and actual customers, as part of the accreditation program?

6. Any other suggestions not already on this list?

We attach also a suggested proposed agenda for the day – including proposed “ground rules” that have been found to have been extremely useful for focusing discussions – and a document on Collaborative Reminders prepared by our professional facilitators that similarly are intended to facilitate useful constructive discussion and outcomes based on the objectives of our session.

On behalf of the WG chairs, we look forward to your feedback on the topics for our LA discussion. Please indicate your choices as soon as possible and in any event by this Friday 3 October. Thank you!

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org