Updated E-1 template
Dear all, The attached updated template for E-1 is an attempt to capture the flavor of the WG discussion that took place this week. Hopefully it will be helpful to you in further thinking through the question and the group in coming to preliminary conclusions over the next week or so. Please feel free to continue discussions on any of the points and on the question via email on this list prior to the next WG call on Tuesday. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thanks to staff for preparing the summary under "WG Response/Discussion" on the Question E. 1 template. May I offer a couple of suggested tweaks to it? First, I think in the discussion last week there was a good deal of support for the proposition that a policy not to forward any messages received (i.e., no relay at all) should not satisfy accreditation standards. Could that be reflected in the summary? Second, with regard to the statement regarding "safeguards against spurious, harassing or irrelevant complaints," are we saying that a policy to forward (relay) all submissions received (e.g., as stated in the terms of the Whois Privacy Service affiliated with above.com on the template, or the policy for Whoisproxy.com [Key Systems]) would not satisfy accreditation standards? I don't think the summary meant to state that conclusion but we should be clearer on this point. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:02 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated E-1 template Dear all, The attached updated template for E-1 is an attempt to capture the flavor of the WG discussion that took place this week. Hopefully it will be helpful to you in further thinking through the question and the group in coming to preliminary conclusions over the next week or so. Please feel free to continue discussions on any of the points and on the question via email on this list prior to the next WG call on Tuesday. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Thank you, Steve I¹ve edited and updated the document accordingly and uploaded it to the WG wiki, as a redlined version against the last one sent around on 16 July for easier review. Cheers Mary From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Updated E-1 template
Thanks to staff for preparing the summary under ³WG Response/Discussion² on the Question E. 1 template. May I offer a couple of suggested tweaks to it? First, I think in the discussion last week there was a good deal of support for the proposition that a policy not to forward any messages received (i.e., no relay at all) should not satisfy accreditation standards. Could that be reflected in the summary? Second, with regard to the statement regarding ³safeguards against spurious, harassing or irrelevant complaints,² are we saying that a policy to forward (relay) all submissions received (e.g., as stated in the terms of the Whois Privacy Service affiliated with above.com on the template, or the policy for Whoisproxy.com [Key Systems]) would not satisfy accreditation standards? I don¹t think the summary meant to state that conclusion but we should be clearer on this point. Steve Metalitz
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:02 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated E-1 template
Dear all,
The attached updated template for E-1 is an attempt to capture the flavor of the WG discussion that took place this week. Hopefully it will be helpful to you in further thinking through the question and the group in coming to preliminary conclusions over the next week or so. Please feel free to continue discussions on any of the points and on the question via email on this list prior to the next WG call on Tuesday.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Steve, On tomorrow's call I would like to discuss the requirement of p/p providers to forward hard copy letters. It seems to me a p/p provider receiving a hard copy letter (after electronic communications has failed) needs to decide to either protect their client's privacy and forward the hard copy letter (possibly passing the cost on to the client) or decide to reveal that information to the sender of the hard copy and let them send the hard copy. I don't know if there is an easy answer but not having a way to send hard copy correspondence when electronic communication has failed is problematic for us. David Hughes david hughes | svp technology | recording industry association of america 1025 f street NW, 10th fl| washington, dc 20004 | (direct) 202.857.9631 | (mobile) 917.733.4494 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:50 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated E-1 template Thanks to staff for preparing the summary under "WG Response/Discussion" on the Question E. 1 template. May I offer a couple of suggested tweaks to it? First, I think in the discussion last week there was a good deal of support for the proposition that a policy not to forward any messages received (i.e., no relay at all) should not satisfy accreditation standards. Could that be reflected in the summary? Second, with regard to the statement regarding "safeguards against spurious, harassing or irrelevant complaints," are we saying that a policy to forward (relay) all submissions received (e.g., as stated in the terms of the Whois Privacy Service affiliated with above.com on the template, or the policy for Whoisproxy.com [Key Systems]) would not satisfy accreditation standards? I don't think the summary meant to state that conclusion but we should be clearer on this point. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:02 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated E-1 template Dear all, The attached updated template for E-1 is an attempt to capture the flavor of the WG discussion that took place this week. Hopefully it will be helpful to you in further thinking through the question and the group in coming to preliminary conclusions over the next week or so. Please feel free to continue discussions on any of the points and on the question via email on this list prior to the next WG call on Tuesday. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Hi All I think we need a further update. The question in E-1 is broad, and not just for allegations of illegal conduct: "Question 1 -- What, if any, are the baseline minimum standardized relay processes that should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers?" One area we should mention is something discussed by James in the last call (and previous calls) about ICANN-required communication under the 2013 RAA (and prior RAAs) for the domain name customer (e.g., renewals). I thought we had agreed to ask that P/P providers pass on this type of communication to their customers. But I also recall that there are some additional nuances we needed to take into account, e.g., that some P/P providers may already (per their contracts) handle some of these issues, e.g., renewal. So let me suggest some wording for the document (and hopefully someone will edit it): /These baseline minimum standardized relay processes should require that those communication that must be sent to Registrants by the terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (e.g., renewals) be required to be forwarded or relayed by P/P Providers to their Customers./ Best, Kathy :
Steve,
On tomorrow's call I would like to discuss the requirement of p/p providers to forward hard copy letters.
It seems to me a p/p provider receiving a hard copy letter (after electronic communications has failed) needs to decide to either protect their client's privacy and forward the hard copy letter (possibly passing the cost on to the client) or decide to reveal that information to the sender of the hard copy and let them send the hard copy. I don't know if there is an easy answer but not having a way to send hard copy correspondence when electronic communication has failed is problematic for us.
David Hughes
*david hughes | svp**technology | recording industry association of america*
*1025 f street NW, 10^th fl| washington, dc 20004 | (direct) 202.857.9631 | (mobile) 917.733.4494 *
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Monday, July 21, 2014 12:50 PM *To:* 'Mary Wong'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated E-1 template
Thanks to staff for preparing the summary under "WG Response/Discussion" on the Question E. 1 template. May I offer a couple of suggested tweaks to it?
First, I think in the discussion last week there was a good deal of support for the proposition that a policy not to forward any messages received (i.e., no relay at all) should not satisfy accreditation standards. Could that be reflected in the summary?
Second, with regard to the statement regarding "safeguards against spurious, harassing or irrelevant complaints," are we saying that a policy to forward (relay) all submissions received (e.g., as stated in the terms of the Whois Privacy Service affiliated with above.com on the template, or the policy for Whoisproxy.com [Key Systems]) would not satisfy accreditation standards? I don't think the summary meant to state that conclusion but we should be clearer on this point.
Steve Metalitz
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:02 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated E-1 template
Dear all,
The attached updated template for E-1 is an attempt to capture the flavor of the WG discussion that took place this week. Hopefully it will be helpful to you in further thinking through the question and the group in coming to preliminary conclusions over the next week or so. Please feel free to continue discussions on any of the points and on the question via email on this list prior to the next WG call on Tuesday.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (4)
-
David Hughes -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Metalitz, Steven