Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
Thanks for circulating this, Amy, it helps to spell out the concern you and Mike raised on this morning's call. Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy? Just to be clear, my understanding is that this WG can't do any of the things you list, since we have no remit to change IRTP-C or its implementation. We could include a recommendation that a change like #2 or #3 be considered in order to facilitate implementation of our p/p service accreditation recommendations. But I imagine it would make a big difference whether we are asking to change a consensus policy or the adopted implementation of that policy. Looking forward to your clarification on this. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:01 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en> ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
*Amy E. Bivins*
Registrar Policy Services Manager
*I*nternet *C*orporation for *A*ssigned *N*ames and *N*umbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
Description: icann-logo*//*
*/One World. One Internet./*
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17^th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Agreed, that was never the intention of the policy anyways if I remember correctly. Best regards, Theo Volker Greimann schreef op 2015-11-18 10:22 AM:
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
__
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net [1] / www.RRPproxy.net [2] www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5] www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu [7]
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net [1] / www.RRPproxy.net [2] www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5] www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu [7]
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Links: ------ [1] http://www.key-systems.net [2] http://www.RRPproxy.net [3] http://www.domaindiscount24.com [4] http://www.BrandShelter.com [5] http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems [6] http://www.twitter.com/key_systems [7] http://www.keydrive.lu
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times... Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply." With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of "designated agents" (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times... Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday: The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted. There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted. I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call. Thanks— J. From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.” With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times… Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hello everyone, Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar¹s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I¹ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given: ³Material Change² means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder¹s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder¹s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder¹s email address. The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant¹s name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (³may²) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request. I¹m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the deaccreditation of the proxy service provider². Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike¹s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the ³Change of Registrant² policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar¹s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don¹t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks
J.
From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve¹s question (³Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?²), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done ³to the letter² of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don¹t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG ³[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.²
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of ³designated agents² (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don¹t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times
Thanks-
J.
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the ³implementation issues² sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you¹d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org
One World. One Internet.
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-p dp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Good Afternoon, Going back to comments that Volker, James and Theo made a couple weeks ago regarding the 60-day lock, I don't recall seeing a resolution/reconciliation of staff interpretation and comments on the mailing list. Staff states that their interpretation of IRTP-C indicates that the removal of the P/P service is a registrant change, whereas several commenters did not interpret the same way. In reading the P/P report it seems like the definition of the P/P service provider is not aligned with the staff interpretation of how IRTP-C relates to the P/P recommendations, specifically in regards to the 60-day lock requirements for change of Registered Name Holder. In the P/P Report the definition of "Privacy Service" states "...a Registered Name is registered to its beneficial user as the Registered Name Holder, but for which alternative, reliable contact information is provided by the privacy or proxy service provider for display of the Registered Name Holder's contact information in the Registration Data Service (WHOIS) or equivalent services." The way I interpret this text is that the Registered Name Holder is not changing when adding/removing a P/P service, and only this "alternative, reliable contact information", the publicly visual data is being changed. In reference to the proposed "de-accreditation" text proposed below in Mary's email, I am not sure this is needed either if you agree that the policy already has defined a change from/to P/P service as non-registrant changing. Thanks Roger From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:05 PM To: James M. Bladel; Mike Zupke; Metalitz, Steven; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Amy Bivins Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hello everyone, Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions - it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar's discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I've highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given: "Material Change" means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address. The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant's name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock - although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion ("may") to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request. I'm far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy service provider". Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hi folks. Just responding to Mike's post from last Wednesday: The question of P/P services triggering the "Change of Registrant" policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar's should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted. There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted. I don't think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call. Thanks- J. From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply." With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of "designated agents" (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times... Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Agreed Roger, That basically boils down my observation during the IRT sessions. Turning a privacy service on or off in the whois not being a material change and as such not applicable. Thanks, Theo Roger D Carney schreef op 2015-12-01 12:10 AM:
Good Afternoon,
Going back to comments that Volker, James and Theo made a couple weeks ago regarding the 60-day lock, I don't recall seeing a resolution/reconciliation of staff interpretation and comments on the mailing list. Staff states that their interpretation of IRTP-C indicates that the removal of the P/P service is a registrant change, whereas several commenters did not interpret the same way.
In reading the P/P report it seems like the definition of the P/P service provider is not aligned with the staff interpretation of how IRTP-C relates to the P/P recommendations, specifically in regards to the 60-day lock requirements for change of Registered Name Holder. In the P/P Report the definition of "Privacy Service" states "…a Registered Name is registered to its beneficial user as the Registered Name Holder, but for which alternative, reliable contact information is provided by the privacy or proxy service provider for display of the Registered Name Holder's contact information in the Registration Data Service (WHOIS) or equivalent services." The way I interpret this text is that the Registered Name Holder is not changing when adding/removing a P/P service, and only this "alternative, reliable contact information", the publicly visual data is being changed.
In reference to the proposed "de-accreditation" text proposed below in Mary's email, I am not sure this is needed either if you agree that the policy already has defined a change from/to P/P service as non-registrant changing.
Thanks
Roger
FROM: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Mary Wong SENT: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:05 PM TO: James M. Bladel; Mike Zupke; Metalitz, Steven; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Amy Bivins SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions - it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar's discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I've highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
"Material Change" _MEANS A NON-TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTION_. The following will be considered material changes:
(i) A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction;
(ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number;
(iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant's name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock - although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion ("may") to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request.
I'm far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - _"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy service provider"_.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> DATE: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 TO: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike's post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the "Change of Registrant" policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar's should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don't think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks--
J.
FROM: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 TO: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg [8]) spoke to having the WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply."
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of "designated agents" (see
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
[9] at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke
Director, Registrar Services
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
FROM: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF James M. Bladel SENT: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM TO: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 TO: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016,
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en
). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net [1] / www.RRPproxy.net [2]www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5]www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu [7]
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net [1] / www.RRPproxy.net [2]www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5]www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu [7]
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Links: ------ [1] http://www.key-systems.net [2] http://www.RRPproxy.net [3] http://www.domaindiscount24.com [4] http://www.BrandShelter.com [5] http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems [6] http://www.twitter.com/key_systems [7] http://www.keydrive.lu [8] https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg [9] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Depends: If it is our own service, then yes, it is immaterial. If however it is an unaffiliated service, I would consider the change material. So I agree with the supposition that it is the prerogative of the registrar to determine what is and what isn't material when it comes to any update. Volker Am 01.12.2015 um 13:02 schrieb gtheo:
Agreed Roger,
That basically boils down my observation during the IRT sessions. Turning a privacy service on or off in the whois not being a material change and as such not applicable.
Thanks,
Theo
Roger D Carney schreef op 2015-12-01 12:10 AM:
Good Afternoon,
Going back to comments that Volker, James and Theo made a couple weeks ago regarding the 60-day lock, I don't recall seeing a resolution/reconciliation of staff interpretation and comments on the mailing list. Staff states that their interpretation of IRTP-C indicates that the removal of the P/P service is a registrant change, whereas several commenters did not interpret the same way.
In reading the P/P report it seems like the definition of the P/P service provider is not aligned with the staff interpretation of how IRTP-C relates to the P/P recommendations, specifically in regards to the 60-day lock requirements for change of Registered Name Holder. In the P/P Report the definition of "Privacy Service" states "…a Registered Name is registered to its beneficial user as the Registered Name Holder, but for which alternative, reliable contact information is provided by the privacy or proxy service provider for display of the Registered Name Holder's contact information in the Registration Data Service (WHOIS) or equivalent services." The way I interpret this text is that the Registered Name Holder is not changing when adding/removing a P/P service, and only this "alternative, reliable contact information", the publicly visual data is being changed.
In reference to the proposed "de-accreditation" text proposed below in Mary's email, I am not sure this is needed either if you agree that the policy already has defined a change from/to P/P service as non-registrant changing.
Thanks
Roger
FROM: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Mary Wong SENT: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:05 PM TO: James M. Bladel; Mike Zupke; Metalitz, Steven; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Amy Bivins SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions - it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar's discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I've highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
"Material Change" _MEANS A NON-TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTION_. The following will be considered material changes:
(i) A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction;
(ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number;
(iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant's name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock - although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion ("may") to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request.
I'm far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - _"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy service provider"_.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> DATE: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 TO: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike's post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the "Change of Registrant" policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar's should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don't think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks--
J.
FROM: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 TO: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg [8]) spoke to having the WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply."
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of "designated agents" (see
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
[9] at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke
Director, Registrar Services
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
FROM: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF James M. Bladel SENT: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM TO: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 TO: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016,
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en
). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net [1] / www.RRPproxy.net [2]www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5]www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu [7]
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net [1] / www.RRPproxy.net [2]www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5]www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu [7]
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Links: ------ [1] http://www.key-systems.net [2] http://www.RRPproxy.net [3] http://www.domaindiscount24.com [4] http://www.BrandShelter.com [5] http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems [6] http://www.twitter.com/key_systems [7] http://www.keydrive.lu [8] https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg [9] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it? Best, Kathy On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
“Material Change” */means a non-typographical correction/*. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address _will_ be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock _prior_ to the Change of Registrant request.
I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - /"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”/.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org <mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks—
J.
From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org <mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg <https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg>) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.”
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke
Director, Registrar Services
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*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 *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM *To:* Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> *Date: *Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 *To: *PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
*Amy E. Bivins*
Registrar Policy Services Manager
*I*nternet *C*orporation for *A*ssigned *N*ames and *N*umbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
Description: icann-logo
*/One World. One Internet./*
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17^th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hello Kathy and all, Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I’m now pasting came about as a result of the WG’s email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today: “The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general “compatibility check” of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP.” I believe the context for this – and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I’d pasted in my earlier email – is the WG’s recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it? Best, Kathy On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given: “Material Change” means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address. The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request. I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday: The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted. There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted. I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call. Thanks— J. From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.” With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers From: <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times… Thanks- J. From: <<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> [Description: icann-logo] One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Kathy/Mary In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn’t a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.) Holly On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kathy and all,
Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I’m now pasting came about as a result of the WG’s email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today:
“The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general “compatibility check” of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP.”
I believe the context for this – and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I’d pasted in my earlier email – is the WG’s recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it?
Best, Kathy
On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
“Material Change” means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request.
I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks—
J.
From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.”
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org
One World. One Internet.
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Taking on data from an unaffiliated but accredited ppp (privacy/proxy provider), we would know their data to be correct as displayed. So we could just take their data. We do not know the underlying data, of course, but that was never a requirement. It is sufficient that the ppp knows. Te problem comes when ppp's have an issue with domains transferred to registrars where they no longer have control or an agreement in place. These are the complicated ones. Volker Am 28.01.2016 um 06:37 schrieb Holly Raiche:
Kathy/Mary
In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn’t a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.)
Holly
On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello Kathy and all,
Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I’m now pasting came about as a result of the WG’s email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today:
/“The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general “compatibility check” of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP.”/
I believe the context for this – and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I’d pasted in my earlier email – is the WG’s recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From:<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date:Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To:"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject:Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it?
Best, Kathy
On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
“Material Change”*/means a non-typographical correction/*. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address_will_be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock_prior_to the Change of Registrant request.
I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation -/"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”/.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email:mary.wong@icann.org
From:<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date:Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To:Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject:Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks—
J.
From:Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org <mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To:"Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject:RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here:https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.” With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#IIat 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James M. Bladel *Sent:*Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM *To:*Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>;gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times… Thanks- J. *From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date:*Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 *To:*PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016,https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! *Amy E. Bivins* Registrar Policy Services Manager *I*nternet*C*orporation for*A*ssigned*N*ames and*N*umbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org */One World. One Internet./* Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17^th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Coming on the new dispensation, would it make a difference if both the originating and receiving Registrars are ICANN-accredited P/P providers? -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Kathy/Mary
In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn’t a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.)
Holly
On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kathy and all,
Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I’m now pasting came about as a result of the WG’s email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today:
*“The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general “compatibility check” of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP.”*
I believe the context for this – and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I’d pasted in my earlier email – is the WG’s recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman < kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it?
Best, Kathy
On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
“Material Change” *means a non-typographical correction*. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address *will* be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock *prior* to the Change of Registrant request.
I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - *"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”*.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: < <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" < jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke < <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins < amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks—
J.
From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG < gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.”
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*From:* <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM *To:* Volker Greimann < <vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
*From: *< <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann < <vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date: *Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 *To: *PPSAI WG < <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
*Amy E. Bivins* Registrar Policy Services Manager *I*nternet *C*orporation for *A*ssigned *N*ames and *N*umbers (ICANN) <amy.bivins@icann.org>amy.bivins@icann.org
*One World. One Internet.*
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Carlton I think we can use the reasoning we used when discussing lawyers holding a domain name for their clients - but are not accredited. In that situation, the lawyer is the client - the registrant - a very different situation than when both the originating and receiving registrars are accredited and P/P providers and covered by the same rules. We just need to work through what rules should be in place so that a beneficial registrant can transfer from one accredited P/P provider to another accredited P/P provider (provided by a different registrar) because in both cases, there are requirements on registrars relating to collecting and checking on the accuracy of the Whois data. We started down that road, with useful discussion which, as Kathy points out - needs more work. Holly On 29 Jan 2016, at 4:18 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Coming on the new dispensation, would it make a difference if both the originating and receiving Registrars are ICANN-accredited P/P providers?
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Kathy/Mary
In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn’t a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.)
Holly
On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kathy and all,
Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I’m now pasting came about as a result of the WG’s email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today:
“The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general “compatibility check” of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP.”
I believe the context for this – and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I’d pasted in my earlier email – is the WG’s recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it?
Best, Kathy
On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
“Material Change” means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request.
I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks—
J.
From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.”
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org
One World. One Internet.
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I have a strictly procedural question: what is the role of the Issues Team after the PDP has been approved but before it gets underway? I'm a little concerned that we are either modifying the issues (with no community opportunity to comment on any outcomes) or are starting the formal PDP proceedings without the rest of the team signed up and before it is actually commenced. However, if this is just unofficial warm up to the formal PDP proceedings (or we are writing as hobbyists only), no worries. I hope you all are well. Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:52 PM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hi Carlton I think we can use the reasoning we used when discussing lawyers holding a domain name for their clients - but are not accredited. In that situation, the lawyer is the client - the registrant - a very different situation than when both the originating and receiving registrars are accredited and P/P providers and covered by the same rules. We just need to work through what rules should be in place so that a beneficial registrant can transfer from one accredited P/P provider to another accredited P/P provider (provided by a different registrar) because in both cases, there are requirements on registrars relating to collecting and checking on the accuracy of the Whois data. We started down that road, with useful discussion which, as Kathy points out - needs more work. Holly On 29 Jan 2016, at 4:18 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Coming on the new dispensation, would it make a difference if both the originating and receiving Registrars are ICANN-accredited P/P providers? -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Kathy/Mary In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn't a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.) Holly On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Kathy and all, Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I'm now pasting came about as a result of the WG's email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today: "The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general "compatibility check" of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP." I believe the context for this - and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I'd pasted in my earlier email - is the WG's recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it? Best, Kathy On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions - it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar's discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I've highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given: "Material Change" means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address. The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant's name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock - although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion ("may") to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request. I'm far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy service provider". Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hi folks. Just responding to Mike's post from last Wednesday: The question of P/P services triggering the "Change of Registrant" policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar's should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted. There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted. I don't think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call. Thanks- J. From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply." With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of "designated agents" (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times... Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20249-7551> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20789-0104> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks Paul I was starting to worry about the continuing emails myself. What I believe we are doing is only getting heads around any next steps - at least clarifying not only what we agreed, but any outstanding issues that we didn’t settle. And I believe what Mary was doing was reminding those of us who weren’t at the GNSO Council meeting of recommendations agreed upon that highlight further work - clearly done through the normal ICANN processes. Certainly, from my point of view, and I’m sure others, the emails are informal discussion - maybe leading up to more work, but certainly not part of a GNSO PDP. Holly On 29 Jan 2016, at 9:05 am, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
I have a strictly procedural question: what is the role of the Issues Team after the PDP has been approved but before it gets underway? I’m a little concerned that we are either modifying the issues (with no community opportunity to comment on any outcomes) or are starting the formal PDP proceedings without the rest of the team signed up and before it is actually commenced.
However, if this is just unofficial warm up to the formal PDP proceedings (or we are writing as hobbyists only), no worries.
I hope you all are well.
Best, Paul
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:52 PM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi Carlton
I think we can use the reasoning we used when discussing lawyers holding a domain name for their clients - but are not accredited. In that situation, the lawyer is the client - the registrant - a very different situation than when both the originating and receiving registrars are accredited and P/P providers and covered by the same rules. We just need to work through what rules should be in place so that a beneficial registrant can transfer from one accredited P/P provider to another accredited P/P provider (provided by a different registrar) because in both cases, there are requirements on registrars relating to collecting and checking on the accuracy of the Whois data. We started down that road, with useful discussion which, as Kathy points out - needs more work.
Holly
On 29 Jan 2016, at 4:18 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Coming on the new dispensation, would it make a difference if both the originating and receiving Registrars are ICANN-accredited P/P providers?
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Kathy/Mary
In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn’t a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.)
Holly
On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kathy and all,
Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I’m now pasting came about as a result of the WG’s email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today:
“The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general “compatibility check” of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP.”
I believe the context for this – and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I’d pasted in my earlier email – is the WG’s recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it?
Best, Kathy
On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone,
Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions – it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given:
“Material Change” means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request.
I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy service provider”.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant” policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted.
I don’t think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call.
Thanks—
J.
From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services.
We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.”
With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
Hope that helps.
Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
Thanks-
J.
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
Best,
Volker
Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org
One World. One Internet.
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks Holly! Sort of like talking about travel plans to the high school reunion, but not actually being at the reunion yet. Makes sense to me. Best, Paul From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:20 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Carlton Samuels; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Thanks Paul I was starting to worry about the continuing emails myself. What I believe we are doing is only getting heads around any next steps - at least clarifying not only what we agreed, but any outstanding issues that we didn't settle. And I believe what Mary was doing was reminding those of us who weren't at the GNSO Council meeting of recommendations agreed upon that highlight further work - clearly done through the normal ICANN processes. Certainly, from my point of view, and I'm sure others, the emails are informal discussion - maybe leading up to more work, but certainly not part of a GNSO PDP. Holly On 29 Jan 2016, at 9:05 am, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: I have a strictly procedural question: what is the role of the Issues Team after the PDP has been approved but before it gets underway? I'm a little concerned that we are either modifying the issues (with no community opportunity to comment on any outcomes) or are starting the formal PDP proceedings without the rest of the team signed up and before it is actually commenced. However, if this is just unofficial warm up to the formal PDP proceedings (or we are writing as hobbyists only), no worries. I hope you all are well. Best, Paul 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 Holly Raiche Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:52 PM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hi Carlton I think we can use the reasoning we used when discussing lawyers holding a domain name for their clients - but are not accredited. In that situation, the lawyer is the client - the registrant - a very different situation than when both the originating and receiving registrars are accredited and P/P providers and covered by the same rules. We just need to work through what rules should be in place so that a beneficial registrant can transfer from one accredited P/P provider to another accredited P/P provider (provided by a different registrar) because in both cases, there are requirements on registrars relating to collecting and checking on the accuracy of the Whois data. We started down that road, with useful discussion which, as Kathy points out - needs more work. Holly On 29 Jan 2016, at 4:18 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Coming on the new dispensation, would it make a difference if both the originating and receiving Registrars are ICANN-accredited P/P providers? -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Kathy/Mary In a F2F (LA, I think) James talked through the problem. Under the RAA, registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the Whois (RDS) data. As yet, there isn't a mechanism by which a registrar, taking on a P/P customer from another from another registrar, can be assured that the Whois data relating to that new customer is accurate. So the short answer is that the new registrar cannot now take at face value the custom of a P/P customer without checking the accuracy of their Whois data. The trouble with the recommendation below is that it fudges the issue. What we should be asking is the extent to which a P/P provider must verify new P/P data - and the extent to which that data can remain confidential in the transfer process. (not the best wording, but we need to accommodate two apparently conflicting requirements: the confidentiality of the data of the P/P customer, and the requirement on registrars for the accuracy of the Whois data for all their customers.) Holly On 27 Jan 2016, at 3:45 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Kathy and all, Thanks for your note; it reminded that I should have also included the further recommendation below in my previous email that noted two specific WG recommendations containing references to the IRTP. This additional recommendation that I'm now pasting came about as a result of the WG's email and live discussions, following the November email exchanges which you and others are referring to today: "The next review of the IRTP should include an analysis of the impact on P/P service customers, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place as regards P/P service protection when domain names are transferred pursuant to an IRTP process. Where a P/P service customer initiates a transfer of a domain name, the WG recognizes that a registrar should have the same flexibility that it has currently to reject incoming transfers from any individual or entity, including those initiated by accredited P/P services. Nevertheless, the WG recommends that, in implementing those elements of the P/P service accreditation program that pertain to or that affect domain name transfers and in addition to its specific recommendations contained in this Final Report, ICANN should perform a general "compatibility check" of each proposed implementation mechanism with the then-current IRTP." I believe the context for this - and the other two IRTP-related recommendations approved in the Final Report that I'd pasted in my earlier email - is the WG's recognition that the effect of the IRTP changes on P/P services and their customers may need to be more directly addressed in the next review of the IRTP. This WG's final recommendations therefore addressed particular situations for which specific exceptions may be warranted due, e.g., to the need to ensure continuing customer protection during the deaccreditation of a P/P service provider. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:08 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If so, how can we overcome it? Best, Kathy On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions - it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe that James is referring to the registrar's discretion in determining whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see in particular the words I've highlighted in bold and italics). This is illustrated by the examples given: "Material Change" means a non-typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction; (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address. The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant's name, organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock - although the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion ("may") to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of Registrant request. I'm far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where, in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to de-accreditation - "where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy service provider". Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24 To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Hi folks. Just responding to Mike's post from last Wednesday: The question of P/P services triggering the "Change of Registrant" policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar's should have the discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day transfer lock may be warranted. There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have been adopted. I don't think this should materially affect the overall recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on our next call. Thanks- J. From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke@icann.org<mailto:Mike.Zupke@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10 To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others. In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for privacy and proxy services. We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3 (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) spoke to having the WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply." With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in a world where consent of the other party would now be required in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question was to allow use of "designated agents" (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy. Hope that helps. Mike Zupke Director, Registrar Services Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times... Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22 To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change. I am therefore in favor of option 2) Best, Volker Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins: Dear PPSAI WG Members: Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team. In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy). Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this: 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation. Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background. Thank you! Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> One World. One Internet. Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20249-7551> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20789-0104> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks Amy, I favor option two in this case. Option 1 will just put a burden on Registrants for no good reason. Best regards, Theo Geurts Amy Bivins schreef op 2015-11-17 07:01 PM:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
__
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
It had been my understanding that we had agreed that replacing the privacy details with the underlying details does not constitute a material change when the whois privacy service provider and the registrar are affiliated as the actual registrant deta would not have changed, only what is on display. As the provision in the IRTP-C was intended to protect registrants against unwanted transfers, the removal of the privacy function would not change anything for the registrant. So Option 2 seems most sensible and it resembles the discussions in both WGs most closely, IIRC, provided that the exception only applies to the customers of registrar-affiliated services. For services not affiliated, the registrar never had the original data, so for the registrar it would be a material change, not the mere removal of a privacy veil. Best, Volker Am 26.01.2016 um 10:56 schrieb gtheo:
Thanks Amy,
I favor option two in this case. Option 1 will just put a burden on Registrants for no good reason.
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
Amy Bivins schreef op 2015-11-17 07:01 PM:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
__
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
+1 Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Legal Counsel Direct: +44 (0)1452 509145 | Mobile: 07720 091147 | Email: Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@1and1.co.uk<mailto:Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@1and1.co.uk> www.fasthosts.co.uk<http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/> www.1and1.co.uk<http://www.1and1.co.uk/> [fh-1and1] © 2015 All rights reserved. Fasthosts is the trading name of Fasthosts Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03656438. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 720821857. 1&1 is the trading name of 1&1 Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03953678. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 752539027. This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately and notify 1&1 on 0844 335 1211 or Fasthosts on 0333 0142 700. Any statements, opinions or information in this message are provided by the author, not on behalf of 1&1 and/or Fasthosts, unless subsequently confirmed by an individual who is authorised to represent 1&1 and/or Fasthosts. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 26 January 2016 15:14 To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; amy.bivins@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue It had been my understanding that we had agreed that replacing the privacy details with the underlying details does not constitute a material change when the whois privacy service provider and the registrar are affiliated as the actual registrant deta would not have changed, only what is on display. As the provision in the IRTP-C was intended to protect registrants against unwanted transfers, the removal of the privacy function would not change anything for the registrant. So Option 2 seems most sensible and it resembles the discussions in both WGs most closely, IIRC, provided that the exception only applies to the customers of registrar-affiliated services. For services not affiliated, the registrar never had the original data, so for the registrar it would be a material change, not the mere removal of a privacy veil. Best, Volker Am 26.01.2016 um 10:56 schrieb gtheo:
Thanks Amy,
I favor option two in this case. Option 1 will just put a burden on
Registrants for no good reason.
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
Amy Bivins schreef op 2015-11-17 07:01 PM:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This
came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the
"implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the
60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes
effect on 1 August 2016,
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ).
Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern
following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer
to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place.
2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so
the
60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if
the customer changes or removes the PP service.
3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is
de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be
lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of
de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further
background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
__
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Dear WG members, Here is the final language of the relevant recommendations, as agreed by the WG and approved by the GNSO Council at their meeting last week. First, in relation to the mandatory requirement for P/P providers to publish and include certain provisions in their Terms of Service: “[P/P providers must publish] the specific grounds upon which a customer’s details may be Disclosed or Published or service suspended or terminated, including Publication in the event of a customer’s initiation of a transfer of the underlying domain name16. In making this recommendation, the WG noted the changes to be introduced to the Inter Registrar Transfer Policy (“IRTP”) in 2016, where following a Change of Registrant a registrar is required to impose a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock.” Also, in relation to the general principles that the WG agreed should guide implementation of the de-accreditation process: “Where a Change of Registrant (as defined under the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy service provider” (with a footnote noting that under the changes to IRTP-Ca registrar would have the discretion to lift the lock at the beneficial user’s request, and no specific exceptions were created at the time the policy was reviewed.) Following from the GNSO Council’s approval of the WG’s Final Report and recommendations, staff is currently preparing a Recommendations Report for the Council’s approval that will, following approval, be forwarded to the Board along with the full Final Report for the Board’s review and action. Prior to the Board decision, a public comment forum will also be opened, in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws’ requirement of transparency, to allow the public a reasonable opportunity to comment on these PDP recommendations. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lindsay Hamilton-Reid <Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@fasthosts.com<mailto:Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@fasthosts.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 23:16 To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue +1 Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Legal Counsel Direct: +44 (0)1452 509145 | Mobile: 07720 091147 | Email:Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@1and1.co.uk<mailto:Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@1and1.co.uk> www.fasthosts.co.uk<http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/> www.1and1.co.uk<http://www.1and1.co.uk/> [fh-1and1] © 2015 All rights reserved. Fasthosts is the trading name of Fasthosts Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03656438. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 720821857. 1&1 is the trading name of 1&1 Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03953678. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 752539027. This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately and notify 1&1 on 0844 335 1211 or Fasthosts on 0333 0142 700. Any statements, opinions or information in this message are provided by the author, not on behalf of 1&1 and/or Fasthosts, unless subsequently confirmed by an individual who is authorised to represent 1&1 and/or Fasthosts. -----Original Message----- 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 Volker Greimann Sent: 26 January 2016 15:14 To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue It had been my understanding that we had agreed that replacing the privacy details with the underlying details does not constitute a material change when the whois privacy service provider and the registrar are affiliated as the actual registrant deta would not have changed, only what is on display. As the provision in the IRTP-C was intended to protect registrants against unwanted transfers, the removal of the privacy function would not change anything for the registrant. So Option 2 seems most sensible and it resembles the discussions in both WGs most closely, IIRC, provided that the exception only applies to the customers of registrar-affiliated services. For services not affiliated, the registrar never had the original data, so for the registrar it would be a material change, not the mere removal of a privacy veil. Best, Volker Am 26.01.2016 um 10:56 schrieb gtheo:
Thanks Amy,
I favor option two in this case. Option 1 will just put a burden on
Registrants for no good reason.
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
Amy Bivins schreef op 2015-11-17 07:01 PM:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This
came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the
"implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the
60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes
effect on 1 August 2016,
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ).
Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern
following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer
to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place.
2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so
the
60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if
the customer changes or removes the PP service.
3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is
de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be
lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of
de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further
background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
__
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 to Volker. Not a problem when the registrar and the P/P provider are affiliated. Holly On 27 Jan 2016, at 2:16 am, Lindsay Hamilton-Reid <Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@fasthosts.com> wrote:
+1
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Legal Counsel Direct: +44 (0)1452 509145 | Mobile: 07720 091147 | Email: Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid@1and1.co.uk www.fasthosts.co.uk www.1and1.co.uk <image001.jpg> © 2015 All rights reserved. Fasthosts is the trading name of Fasthosts Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03656438. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 720821857. 1&1 is the trading name of 1&1 Internet Limited. Company registration no. 03953678. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Discovery House, 154 Southgate Street, Gloucester, GL1 2EX. VAT no. 752539027. This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately and notify 1&1 on 0844 335 1211 or Fasthosts on 0333 0142 700. Any statements, opinions or information in this message are provided by the author, not on behalf of 1&1 and/or Fasthosts, unless subsequently confirmed by an individual who is authorised to represent 1&1 and/or Fasthosts.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 26 January 2016 15:14 To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; amy.bivins@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
It had been my understanding that we had agreed that replacing the privacy details with the underlying details does not constitute a material change when the whois privacy service provider and the registrar are affiliated as the actual registrant deta would not have changed, only what is on display. As the provision in the IRTP-C was intended to protect registrants against unwanted transfers, the removal of the privacy function would not change anything for the registrant.
So Option 2 seems most sensible and it resembles the discussions in both WGs most closely, IIRC, provided that the exception only applies to the customers of registrar-affiliated services. For services not affiliated, the registrar never had the original data, so for the registrar it would be a material change, not the mere removal of a privacy veil.
Best,
Volker
Am 26.01.2016 um 10:56 schrieb gtheo:
Thanks Amy,
I favor option two in this case. Option 1 will just put a burden on Registrants for no good reason.
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
Amy Bivins schreef op 2015-11-17 07:01 PM:
Dear PPSAI WG Members:
Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by the "implementation issues" sub-team.
In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which takes effect on 1 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain privacy).
Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in place. 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service. 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been notified of de-accreditation.
Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further background.
Thank you!
AMY E. BIVINS
Registrar Policy Services Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
amy.bivins@icann.org
__
_ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (13)
-
Amy Bivins -
Carlton Samuels -
gtheo -
Holly Raiche -
James M. Bladel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Metalitz, Steven -
Mike Zupke -
Roger D Carney -
Volker Greimann