Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG¹s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter in relation to de-accreditation adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG¹s further agreement in Dublin about ³importing² a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG¹s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week's call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line! Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG's consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter - in relation to de-accreditation - adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG's further agreement in Dublin about "importing" a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG's discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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>
All, I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It¹s certainly important the WG¹s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers ³during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)² seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That¹s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it¹s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that¹s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract and that¹s what this approach implies. It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers. Look forward to tomorrow¹s meeting. Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week¹s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line! Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG¹s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter in relation to de-accreditation adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG¹s further agreement in Dublin about ³importing² a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG¹s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers. I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period. Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell:
All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting.
Thanks, Darcy
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text.
As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate.
The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by *Monday 7 December 2015*. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following:
* All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. P_lease note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team._ There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. _The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration_. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from.
Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
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>
_______________________________________________ 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.
I too agree with Darcy’s proposed modification. For my part, I would hope we could modify II. 4 on page 9 to make it clear that on top of being feasible, the labelling in the WHOIS also implies knowledge of the registrar of record. Written as it is it reads to me as if the only condition for the labelling is its technical feasibility. Also point 14 on page 13 assimilate the designated point of contact for a P/P service provider to the TEAC. This point of contact under the policy on transfers is supposed to reply within 4 hours from the sending of a message. Imposing such tremendous obligation on P/P service providers part seems inappropriate. The 4th bullet point of point 17 on page 15 doesn’t seem to allow for a third party (the registrar) to perform the email address verification. In cas where the P/P service provider is also affiliated to a registrar I don’t think it will be the P/P service provider who will perform the verification. Regarding 1.3.2 on page 19, would it be too bold to also recommend that this accreditation shall not be subject to an ICANN accreditation fee? All the best, Luc On 30 Nov 2015, at 18:31, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers. I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period. Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell: All, I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies. It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers. Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting. Thanks, Darcy 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 "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line! Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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> _______________________________________________ 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 -- 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------
All of Luc's suggestions below involve language that has been stable in the report for several months, so I would urge caution in making changes now. See also some reactions inline below. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:53 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps I too agree with Darcy's proposed modification. For my part, I would hope we could modify II. 4 on page 9 to make it clear that on top of being feasible, the labelling in the WHOIS also implies knowledge of the registrar of record. Written as it is it reads to me as if the only condition for the labelling is its technical feasibility. Also point 14 on page 13 assimilate the designated point of contact for a P/P service provider to the TEAC. This point of contact under the policy on transfers is supposed to reply within 4 hours from the sending of a message. Imposing such tremendous obligation on P/P service providers part seems inappropriate. RESPONSE: The cited provision does not "assimilate the designated point of contact ...to the TEAC," it simply refers to the capability and authorization of the point of contact as being "similar to that currently required for a TEAC." The 4th bullet point of point 17 on page 15 doesn't seem to allow for a third party (the registrar) to perform the email address verification. In cas where the P/P service provider is also affiliated to a registrar I don't think it will be the P/P service provider who will perform the verification. RESPONSE: Though it is hard to imagine a p/p provider being deemed non-compliant because the reverification was carried out by the registrar with which it is affiliated, perhaps a cross-reference to Recommendation 5 which deals with this would be in order. Regarding 1.3.2 on page 19, would it be too bold to also recommend that this accreditation shall not be subject to an ICANN accreditation fee? RESPONSE: Too bold in the sense of too late on an issue that has bene under discussion for months - furthermore, isn't this a quintessential implementation question? All the best, Luc On 30 Nov 2015, at 18:31, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>> wrote: That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers. I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period. Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell: All, I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It's certainly important the WG's recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers "during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)" seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That's clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it's unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that's ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract - and that's what this approach implies. It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30-day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers. Look forward to tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Darcy 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%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com%3cmailto:met@msk.com>>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week's call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line! Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG's consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter - in relation to de-accreditation - adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG's further agreement in Dublin about "importing" a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG's discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net/<http://www.key-systems.net/>> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.rrpproxy.net/<http://www.rrpproxy.net/>> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com><http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems><http://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><http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net/<http://www.key-systems.net/>> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.rrpproxy.net/<http://www.rrpproxy.net/>> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com><http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems><http://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><http://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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg> ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg>
I actually agree with most of what Luc said. I also have no issue with changing what needs to be (or should be) changed. Stability for any given period has no value in and of itself, it just means no one noticed the issue so far. Comments inline: Am 30.11.2015 um 22:09 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
All of Luc’s suggestions below involve language that has been stable in the report for several months, so I would urge caution in making changes now. See also some reactions inline below.
Steve Metalitz
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Luc SEUFER *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 1:53 PM *To:* Volker Greimann *Cc:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
I too agree with Darcy’s proposed modification.
For my part, I would hope we could modify II. 4 on page 9 to make it clear that on top of being feasible, the labelling in the WHOIS also implies knowledge of the registrar of record. Written as it is it reads to me as if the only condition for the labelling is its technical feasibility.
VG: This makes sense and corresponds to language in the RAA. We could also explore changing this to something like: "p/p service providers should clearly label themselves as such in the WHOIS data provided to the registrar."
Also point 14 on page 13 assimilate the designated point of contact for a P/P service provider to the TEAC. This point of contact under the policy on transfers is supposed to reply within 4 hours from the sending of a message. Imposing such tremendous obligation on P/P service providers part seems inappropriate.RESPONSE: The cited provision does not “assimilate the designated point of contact …to the TEAC,” it simply refers to the capability and authorization of the point of contact as being “similar to that currently required for a TEAC.”
The TEAC is the wrong comparison here. Contactibility should be similar to the abuse point of contact, not the TEAC as TEAC is designed specifically as an emergency contact to be used between registrars. Lets remove TEAC here.
The 4th bullet point of point 17 on page 15 doesn’t seem to allow for a third party (the registrar) to perform the email address verification. In cas where the P/P service provider is also affiliated to a registrar I don’t think it will be the P/P service provider who will perform the verification.RESPONSE: Though it is hard to imagine a p/p provider being deemed non-compliant because the reverification was carried out by the registrar with which it is affiliated, perhaps a cross-reference to Recommendation 5 which deals with this would be in order.
Essentially, we want the data to be verified. once. Who does the verification is irrelevant as long as it is done. Right? OK, maybe "want" is not the right word, because email verification is evil and most registrars, registrants and other non IP/LEA folks do not really want it...
Regarding 1.3.2 on page 19, would it be too bold to also recommend that this accreditation shall not be subject to an ICANN accreditation fee? RESPONSE: Too bold in the sense of too late on an issue that has bene under discussion for months – furthermore, isn’t this a quintessential implementation question?
Mainly implementation, I agree, but I would urge that this not be made into a new source of income for ICANN, forcing providers already accredited as registrars to pay twice. Besides accreditations fees, other fees that ICANN should not charge are: per domain/per year increments, transaction fees, ... Talk to you in 10 Minutes... Volker
All the best,
Luc
On 30 Nov 2015, at 18:31, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>> wrote:
That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers.
I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period.
Volker
Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell: All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting.
Thanks, Darcy
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%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com%3cmailto:met@msk.com>>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following:
* All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from.
Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
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 <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg <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 <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto: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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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><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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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><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 <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
-------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 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.
Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy's suggestion is to say "practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective." From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers. I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period. Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell: All, I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It's certainly important the WG's recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers "during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)" seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That's clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it's unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that's ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract - and that's what this approach implies. It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30-day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers. Look forward to tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week's call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line! Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG's consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter - in relation to de-accreditation - adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG's further agreement in Dublin about "importing" a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG's discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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> _______________________________________________ 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<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<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.
My suggestion is more along the lines of this (changes in red): "Principle 1: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent) once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective 30 days after notice of termination.² From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy¹s suggestion is to say ³practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective.² From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers. I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period. Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell:
All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It¹s certainly important the WG¹s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers ³during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)² seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That¹s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it¹s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that¹s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract and that¹s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow¹s meeting.
Thanks,
Darcy
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text.
As noted on last week¹s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate.
The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG¹s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter in relation to de-accreditation adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG¹s further agreement in Dublin about ³importing² a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG¹s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ 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 <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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
This wording makes sense to me. Customers learn of the de-accreditation when it is made final. They then have 30 days to find another Provider, relocate their proxy/privacy registration and protect their privacy. That sounds right and I support Darcy's edit. Best, Kathy On 11/30/2015 4:10 PM, Darcy Southwell wrote:
My suggestion is more along the lines of this (changes in red):
"_Principle 1_: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent) once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective 30 days after notice of termination.”
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy’s suggestion is to say “practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective.”
*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:* Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers.
I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period.
Volker
Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell:
All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting.
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> *Date: *Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM *To: *'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text.
As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate.
The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by *Monday 7 December 2015*. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following:
* All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. P_lease note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team._ There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. _The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration_. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from.
Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
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>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I agree with Darcy and Kathy. We don't want to inadvertently cause a customer stampede if a P/P provider gets an easily curable breach notice, especially if it is for a clerical issue (failure to file a report, pay ICANN taxes, etc.) Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 3:27 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps This wording makes sense to me. Customers learn of the de-accreditation when it is made final. They then have 30 days to find another Provider, relocate their proxy/privacy registration and protect their privacy. That sounds right and I support Darcy's edit. Best, Kathy On 11/30/2015 4:10 PM, Darcy Southwell wrote: My suggestion is more along the lines of this (changes in red): "Principle 1: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent) once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective 30 days after notice of termination." From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy's suggestion is to say "practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective." 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: Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers. I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period. Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell: All, I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It's certainly important the WG's recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers "during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)" seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That's clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it's unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that's ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract - and that's what this approach implies. It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30-day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers. Look forward to tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text. As noted on last week's call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate. The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line! Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG's consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter - in relation to de-accreditation - adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG's further agreement in Dublin about "importing" a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG's discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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> _______________________________________________ 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 -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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.
I agree, seems reasonable to me. Stephanie On 2015-11-30 16:25, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
This wording makes sense to me. Customers learn of the de-accreditation when it is made final. They then have 30 days to find another Provider, relocate their proxy/privacy registration and protect their privacy. That sounds right and I support Darcy's edit.
Best, Kathy
On 11/30/2015 4:10 PM, Darcy Southwell wrote:
My suggestion is more along the lines of this (changes in red):
"_Principle 1_: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent) once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective 30 days after notice of termination.”
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy’s suggestion is to say “practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective.”
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers.
I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period.
Volker
Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell:
All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting.
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> *Date: *Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM *To: *'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text.
As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate.
The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by *Monday 7 December 2015*. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following:
* All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. P_lease note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team._ There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. _The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration_. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from.
Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
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>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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
It also makes sense to me - thanks for the suggested change Holly On 1 Dec 2015, at 9:42 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I agree, seems reasonable to me. Stephanie
On 2015-11-30 16:25, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
This wording makes sense to me. Customers learn of the de-accreditation when it is made final. They then have 30 days to find another Provider, relocate their proxy/privacy registration and protect their privacy. That sounds right and I support Darcy's edit.
Best, Kathy
On 11/30/2015 4:10 PM, Darcy Southwell wrote:
My suggestion is more along the lines of this (changes in red):
"Principle 1: *** the WG recommends that ICANN explore practicable ways in which customers may be notified during the breach notice process (or its equivalent) once ICANN issues a termination of accreditation notice but before the de-accreditation becomes effective. The WG recommends that de-accreditation become effective 30 days after notice of termination.”
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy’s suggestion is to say “practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective.”
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers.
I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period.
Volker
Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell: All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting.
Thanks, Darcy
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text.
As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate.
The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 disagree. The notification should come between the decision for deaccreditation being published and the actual de-accreditation. Sending the notice upon the breach notice, when it may be in error or the breach may be cured is unreasonable. Best, Volker Am 30.11.2015 um 21:57 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Perhaps one way to reformulate this to capture Darcy’s suggestion is to say “practicable ways in which customers may be notified as soon as possible after a breach notice is issued and well before it becomes effective.”
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 12:31 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
That sounds reasonable. The notice period could be seen as similar to the suspension period for registrars currently in place where a registrar is no langer able to accept new registrations or transfers, but can still serve its existing customers.
I support the suggested change of moving the notice out of the breach notice period.
Volker
Am 30.11.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Darcy Southwell:
All,
I have some concerns about the language contained in Principle 1 on page 17. It’s certainly important the WG’s recommendations focus on minimizing any risks of exposing private customer data during the de-accreditation process. However, notifying customers “during the breach notice process (or its equivalent)” seems problematic. This assumes every P/P provider that receives a breach notice will end up de-accredited. That’s clearly not the case in the current registrar breach process, and it’s unlikely to be case with the P/P providers. Second, there could be significant negative impact to businesses that receive just one breach notice even though the breach ends up cured. The focus of the breach process should not be to penalize every provider that’s ever done something in violation of the accreditation contract – and that’s what this approach implies.
It seems the better approach would be to notify customers somewhere between the date of the termination notice and the effective date of the accreditation termination. If we consider a 30–day period between the termination notice and termination effective date, there is ample time to notify customers.
Look forward to tomorrow’s meeting.
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> *Date: *Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM *To: *'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Thanks to Mary and her colleagues for generating this final report text.
As noted on last week’s call, unless it seemed necessary to hold our usual weekly meeting this week (tomorrow), we would cancel it, in order to give WG members time to review this text carefully. The call tomorrow has now been cancelled, and we urge you to use this week for this review, and for consultation with the relevant GNSO stakeholder group/constituency, or with ALAC groups, as appropriate.
The goal of the review and consultation is to identify any mistakes or ambiguities in this text that would interfere with your ability to respond to the consensus call. We urge WG members to bring any such issues up on the WG list as soon as possible, which will help us in fashioning a productive agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday December 1. We have allocated 90 minutes for this call (beginning at 1430 UTC) to provide additional time to discuss and resolve any errors or ambiguities identified. We anticipate that this will be the final WG call before the close of the consensus call on Monday, December 7. All expressions of support for the recommendations of the Final Report, as well as any separate statements regarding recommendations that you cannot support, will be due at that time. Thanks to all for your continued efforts as we bring this report across the finish line!
Steve Metalitz and Graeme Bunton
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 5:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by *Monday 7 December 2015*. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following:
* All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. P_lease note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team._ There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. _The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration_. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from.
Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
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>
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
-- 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.
-- 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.
Folks A few minor editorial changes. I don’t think they should involve discussion, but will just make things bit clearer. The document refers to the beneficial users of P/P services in several ways: as beneficial user, as Customer (capitalised or not) or registrant. There should be consistency so my suggestion is that in the definitions section, we define Customer to mean the beneficial user of the service. And then throughout the document, when we are referring to the Customer of a service, we use the term with a capitalised ‘C’. When we are talking more generally about registrants, use that term In the document, in many places the term ‘affiliated’ is capitalised but in other places it is not. My preference is that it not be capitalised since I think the meaning is clear and doesn’t need further explanation. If others do not agree, then please suggest a definition, and then the definition can be inserted into the definition section and capitalised when used throughout the document. In the discussion around Para 13, the term ‘forward’ is used along with the term Relay. We have already defined the term ‘Relay’ to mean forwarding, so it is confusing when both terms are used. I suggest that we NOT use the word forward when what we mean is Relay - it is less confusing. There are also a few minor errors in spelling or formatting which I assume will be picked up before the document is released. Thanks Holly On 21 Nov 2015, at 9:38 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
<Updated Draft Fina#4C059F3.docx><Updated Draft Fina#4BCE0E7.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks Holly, all these changes seems sensible to me. Note that "Affiliated" is defined in footnote 15, borrowing from the RAA definition. I agree with the suggestion to move this into the definitions section of the report. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:42 PM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps Folks A few minor editorial changes. I don't think they should involve discussion, but will just make things bit clearer. The document refers to the beneficial users of P/P services in several ways: as beneficial user, as Customer (capitalised or not) or registrant. There should be consistency so my suggestion is that in the definitions section, we define Customer to mean the beneficial user of the service. And then throughout the document, when we are referring to the Customer of a service, we use the term with a capitalised 'C'. When we are talking more generally about registrants, use that term In the document, in many places the term 'affiliated' is capitalised but in other places it is not. My preference is that it not be capitalised since I think the meaning is clear and doesn't need further explanation. If others do not agree, then please suggest a definition, and then the definition can be inserted into the definition section and capitalised when used throughout the document. In the discussion around Para 13, the term 'forward' is used along with the term Relay. We have already defined the term 'Relay' to mean forwarding, so it is confusing when both terms are used. I suggest that we NOT use the word forward when what we mean is Relay - it is less confusing. There are also a few minor errors in spelling or formatting which I assume will be picked up before the document is released. Thanks Holly On 21 Nov 2015, at 9:38 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG members, Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October. As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens the period for the WG's consensus call. Following this, in accordance with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus call period by Monday 7 December 2015. Unless determined otherwise as a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently marked as Full Consensus of the WG. For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft report include the following: * All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary, which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report. * The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into the report as Annex B. Please note that the final recommendation includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and finalized by the Sub Team. There is also a recommendation for a post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. * On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. The former makes reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter - in relation to de-accreditation - adds a specific recommendation to the effect that a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration. This recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the effect on P/P registrations. * On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific individual recommendations with the new set of three general principles recently reviewed by the WG. * On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the responsibility of a Registered Name Holder. * On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG's further agreement in Dublin about "importing" a few critical elements from the Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed. * In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin, for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers. * Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG's discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment box explaining where the change came from. Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams, for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report! 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> <Updated Draft Fina#4C059F3.docx><Updated Draft Fina#4BCE0E7.docx>_______________________________________________ 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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg>
participants (9)
-
Darcy Southwell -
Holly Raiche -
Kathy Kleiman -
Luc SEUFER -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Metalitz, Steven -
Stephanie Perrin -
Volker Greimann