Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140722-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140722-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Steve Metalitz - IPC Justin Macy – BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Chris Pelling – RrSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Graeme Bunton – RrSG Val Sherman – IPC Griffin Barnett – IPC Susan Kawaguchi – BC Kathy Kleiman – NCUC Stephanie Perrin – NCSG David Heasley – IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Jim Bikoff – IPC Kristina Rosette – IPC Paul McGrady – IPC Carlton Samuels – ALAC Todd Williams – IPC Tim Ruiz - RrSG Michele Neylon – RrSG Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG Roy Balleste – NCUC Frank Michlick – Individual Phil Marano-IPC Luc Seufer- RrSG Volker Greimann-RrSG Maria Farrell-NCUC Tobias Sattler-RrSG Sean McInerney - SOI Apologies: Holly Raiche – ALAC Don Blumenthal – RySG James Bladel – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Christian Dawson – ISPCP Don Moody - IPC ICANN staff: Marika Konings 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 22 July 2014: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 22 July 2014 Carlton Samuels:Howdy do everybody Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Chris Pelling:afternoon all Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Hello! Tim Ruiz:Hello all! Graeme Bunton:Good morning all, if you missed it, Don is travelling today and I'll be subbing in as chair today Paul McGrady:Good morning all. I'm having some trouble with hearing the audio, so I may need to switch to dial in rather than Adobe. Terri Agnew:David Heasley and Jim Bikoff have joined Kathy:Hi All! Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon and Kristina Rosette have joined Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Mary Wong:Steve's point has now been added to the E-1 template (see screen), but we have not had the chance to add Kathy's suggestion. Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined Carlton Samuels:FWIW, re Kathy's suggestion: +1. The ALAC's position is that all terms of the RAA remain in force Tim Ruiz:What is bonified? Luc Seufer:4 to 5 years for a Bordeaux Stephanie Perrin:that was my question as well, we never really solved the problem of alleged bad behaviour Terri Agnew:Volker Greimann has joined Chris Pelling:my understanding was no one actually said they would not ? Chris Pelling:that and they cant read michele Terri Agnew:Maria Farrell has joined Luc Seufer:FWIW the French Registry, who is providing a de facto privacy service to every individuals registering a .fr domain name is using the form+captcha available here for their relay http://www.afnic.fr/en/dispute-resolution/tools-and-procedures/reach-a-domai... Maria Farrell:I have seen a Carlow policeman. Agree with Michele - you don't want one turning up on your doorstep!! Carlton Samuels:+1 to Kathy Chris Pelling:thanks Luc Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes, so leave the decision to the P/P provider and make that a compliance matter Carlton Samuels:@Graeme: James's explanation is compelling to me Tim Ruiz:As long as we also recognize that the P/P provider is not the begin and end all of the email chain. Email providers themselves may filter beyond the P/P provider's control, as well as in the chain after, as wwith Tim Ruiz:...as with the users software. Alex Deacon:can you hear me? Alex Deacon:ok I need to dial in - just a sec. apologies Michele Neylon:the sound of silence .. Terri Agnew:Alex, your mic isn't active kristina rosette:Graeme, can you walk through how you'd know in 15 days if it failed. I'm not clear on that. (I know the RAA provision, but not sure how it would apply here.) kristina rosette:sorry. need to be on mute b/c of office construction kristina rosette:So, the idea is that the proxy provider would report to the registrar, who would then suspend? Terri Agnew:Alex has activated his mic Tim Ruiz:Are we talking about only the emails that are relayed? Michele Neylon:AFK Chris Pelling:Steve, should the email address work, and your email is passed on but you get no response, then what ? are you going to continue emailing or ? Not trying to create a storm, trying to understand Chris Pelling:@Steve, but the PP wont reply to you or is that what you are trying to request ? Val Sherman:+1 Steve Kathy:What about sales request? If someone is trying to buy a domain name, is that the type of email I (as a customer) should be able to "opt-out" of? Graeme Bunton:You're right Kristina that I was mostly thinking about that in the context of a registrar afiliated service Tim Ruiz:Not all email systems send notice on bounces or non-deliverables, as far as I know. So there is really no way to enforece or check this anyway, as far as I know. Kathy:I hate to say it, but it sounds like a lot of work to check bounces... kristina rosette:@Graeme: That's the gap I'm thinking about - when there proxy/privacy provider is not affiliated with the registrar. Justin Macy:Correect me if I'm wrong, I don't think Steve is talking about spam. An email that lands in a spam folder is still technically delivered. Even though it may be ignored. Tim Ruiz:Again, how would this be verified or enforced? Volker Greimann:parody? steve metalitz:@Volker --parity Marika Konings:Could P/P terms of service require/recommend that P/P provider email address is whitelisted to ensure that communications are received (and it is the responsibility of the registrant to do so)? Chris Pelling:did my hand raise ? Tobias Sattler:Sorry for being late. Graeme Bunton:it did, chris Frank Michlick:Sorry, I have to drop off the meeting. Michele Neylon:Marika - how can we check that? Carlton Samuels:@Steve: The question is what happens beyond the P/P provider's gate. There are several reasons for 'communications failure'. If we make the rule that a provider would have a duty to relay, then response is still required of the P/P as middleman. the responsibility to complete the communications chain Terri Agnew:Tobias Sattler has joined Tim Ruiz:Perhaps it is a best practice instead? Michele Neylon:+1 with Volker's comment Michele Neylon:some MTAs give back really useless errors Marika Konings:@Michele - you cannot check, but you make clear that it is the responsibility of the registrant to ensure that communications from P/P can be delivered. Michele Neylon:Marika - ok, but how does that help anyone? :) Marika Konings:hopefully it helps messages actually being delivered instead of getting stuck in the spam filter ;-) Chris Pelling:ok, well ours last 24 hours Mary Wong:Although not a 100% fail-safe guarantee, is this one place where the "knowingly" phrase from the RAA might come in useful? ie if the P/P providre knows a delivery failed, there's then an obligation to notify teh requestor? kristina rosette:US Postal Service provides delivery confirmation. Justin Macy:US Postal service will also return to sender if undeliverable Michele Neylon:Kristina - assuming they ever deliver :) Carlton Samuels:Why would one ever assume 'communications failure'? I suspect elapsed time from original message? If you get no response then you check? The P/P provider is duty-bound to relay the message . The message may have to be delivered by alternate means. Tim Ruiz:@Kristina, but at a cost to the sender, right? Chris Pelling:@Steve, but what if they simply dont respond Tim Ruiz:Is ther then any reason why P/P provider could not charge a reasonable fee for the bounce back or non-deliverable service? Mary Wong:@Michele, that was my suggestion for the group to consider - "knowingly" Kathy:@Mary: I think we are imposing a huge new obligation on p/p providers Tim Ruiz:Charging would cover P/P costs and discourage abuse of the complaint system. Again, only charging for getting a return confirmation of sorts. Chris Pelling:@alex not for international I would wager Chris Pelling:ie Royal Mail in the uk will not send a letter back to the usa at their cost Kathy:@Steve's idea: that the p/p provider user commercially reasonable means to delivery the email -- that makes sense to me. Michele Neylon:I like "commercially reasonable" and that kind of language Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Are we going to require that postal mail be relayed? Right now many P/P providers relay email but not letter mail... Darcy Southwell:I agree with Kathy and Michele about "commercially reasonable" obligations to deliver to the registrant what is submitted to to the p/p provider. Chris Pelling:ok - Ill put out there now, we charge the sender for relaying postal mail as it introduces a "man cost" Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Here we are, getting into the weeds of the protocols, and the meaning the rules of communications. The rule is that messages must be relayed. Failure in this state means 'we didn't hear from somebody in a specified time'. Then, since you have the duty to communicate. The message may take several channels. Given the responsibility to deliver a message, you go for alternate communication channel. Now, what might be reasonable as a channel is a sliding scale, depending on effort and cost. But there will be a consequence for non-communication. Tim Ruiz:Commercially Reasonable would be applied to the parties of the agreement. So, yes, it may be different for different parties. steve metalitz:+1 Mary, these are two separate points -- delivery and known failure Mary Wong:OK thanks! Marika Konings:Please note that some of the P/P providers sampled do seem to relay postal mail (in certain cases they would scan it and send it via email) Chris Pelling:@Marika, yes we do for a charge though Carlton Samuels:The first indication of a likely delivery failure is "no response in the x days set' Tim Ruiz:If it has value to the requestor, the a cost recovery fee seems reasonable. Alex Deacon:@Carlton - failure in this case means that the P/P received a failure message when attempting to communicate with their customer. No resposne may not be a failure. Chris Pelling:@steve, email is free, written comms isnt Chris Pelling:Foe example, the charge we make is for time taken in scanning the document, and then confirming delivery back to the sender Chris Pelling:so that have a signed letter from us of delivery Luc Seufer:the secret business partnership did not lasted too long Carlton Samuels:@Alex. Understood. But I think we're focusing on details. Our interest is a response to a message. The details of delivery mode is less important IMHO. Let the P/P and their customer decide Terri Agnew:Sean McInerney has joined audio Graeme Bunton:You're a bit loud Volker Kathy:+1 Carlton Michele Neylon:at least we can hear him Chris Pelling:Graeme I notice you never said that to Michele :p Chris Pelling:hehe Justin Macy:I tend to think we are talking about two seperate services, a bounce back being forwarded and a certified letter of delivery. I tend to think the bounce back cost should be paid by the customer. I'm not so sure on the certified delivery., I would need to think about it more. steve metalitz:David's suggestion was forwardingmail when electronic communications had failed Volker Greimann:It does actually! Kathy:@Steve, tx for the clarification -- useful to know Chris Pelling:or they simply dont wish to respond for example Chris Pelling:so you want to hear from me again ? Chris Pelling:I dont mind answering that Michele Neylon:lack of response doesn't equate with lack of functionality Mary Wong:Go ahead, Chris Michele Neylon:I get a LOT of snail mail that I bin Luc Seufer:I think you meant "recycle" Michele Kathy:Tx you, Chris! Chris Pelling:sorry vlubt and to the point Chris Pelling:blunt * Tim Ruiz:I think a best practice is the way to go with this. Making it a requirement would only create yet another unverifiable, unenforceable policy Michele Neylon:I have a very large recycling bin by my desk Chris Pelling:but they dont confirm back to you Chris Pelling:that was @Steve Luc Seufer:here you go! blacknight.com even our complaint management system is green Chris Pelling:hehe Luc Chris Pelling:absolutely correct Michele Kathy:+1 to Michele: it's true in the real world,and it's true in the electronic world: there is no obligation to respond to a request to purchase, to a mere allegation of concern, etc Carlton Samuels:I do not believe we should be prescriptive about how a message is sent. The rule must outline a duty to respond and in a certain time. After that time has elapsed make the reaction to non-response sure and effective Carlton Samuels:@Michele: I agree, no duty to respond but there must be a clear outcome from non-response. Mary Wong:We'll send around an updated E-1 template in the next day or so. Chris Pelling:Thanks you all :) Kathy:Great moderating, Graeme, much appreciated! Paul McGrady:Thanks! Darcy Southwell:Thank you! Val Sherman:thanks! Maria Farrell:Thanks graeme Luc Seufer:thx Tim Ruiz:Bye Carlton Samuels:Thanks all. An interesting discussion Maria Farrell:+1 kathy