Following up today's discussion on transferring names
Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary, Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful. Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy. Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered. Many thanks to James for the presentation. All the best, Maria
Hi, maybe one clarification. The reactions I described (Whois inaccuracy complaints, etc) only apply to unauthorized transfers. We have on one occasion allowed a customer to transfer with the service intact, provided they confirmed that they would update the whois within 5 days after the transfer (which we then manually checked). In that case we also confirmed that the domain was not visibly used for nefarious purposes. But that was a one-off. The manual handling required makes this highly uneconomically. Volker Am 15.04.2014 17:35, schrieb Maria Farrell:
Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary,
Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful.
Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy.
Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered.
Many thanks to James for the presentation.
All the best, Maria
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay. On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer’s ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.) If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary, Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful. Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy. Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered. Many thanks to James for the presentation. All the best, Maria
Makes sense to me. On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay. On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer's ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.) If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary, Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful. Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy. Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered. Many thanks to James for the presentation. All the best, Maria _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 m/ (202) 903-4422 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:48 AM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names Makes sense to me. On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay. On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer's ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.) If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary, Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful. Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy. Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered. Many thanks to James for the presentation. All the best, Maria _______________________________________________ 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 =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================
Steve: Yes, I think that (w.r.t. Transfer & Renewal notices) is where we are landing. Personally, I would favor both relay requirements for certain critical communications, and required disclosure of these terms to P/P customers. J. From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 10:43 To: 'Maria Farrell' <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>>, "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] Following up today's discussion on transferring names I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay. On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer's ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.) If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary, Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful. Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy. Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered. Many thanks to James for the presentation. All the best, Maria
I agree that the disclosure of any transfer obligations and/or restrictions should be a best practice / responsibility of an accredited provider. This is independent of the relay obligation, if a transfer is prohibited with active protection, the best and most robust relay would not change that. Volker Am 15.04.2014 17:43, schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay.
On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer's ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.)
If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion.
Steve Metalitz
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Maria Farrell *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names
Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary,
Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful.
Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy.
Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered.
Many thanks to James for the presentation.
All the best, Maria
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi All, I think it is more than information. We've touched on a gap - that requires disclosure as a condition of transfer - and a possibility of alternatives that would not require that disclosure. We've even touched on possibilities that might enable such a transfer - between registrars and between affiliated p/p service providers - to take place within the existing system and possibly using existing keys. This is an important gap to fill from a Registrant perspective -- and a great discussion that should be continued! Best, Kathy :
I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay.
On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer's ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.)
If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion.
Steve Metalitz
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Maria Farrell *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names
Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary,
Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful.
Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy.
Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered.
Many thanks to James for the presentation.
All the best, Maria
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Yes, at the minimum, there's an information disclosure issue here, but I'd also like to see if it's possible to start with the principle that normal ICANN policies, e.g. transfer, should also apply to privacy/proxy users, and see how that might practically be implemented. m On 15 April 2014 17:03, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi All, I think it is more than information. We've touched on a gap - that requires disclosure as a condition of transfer - and a possibility of alternatives that would not require that disclosure. We've even touched on possibilities that might enable such a transfer - between registrars and between affiliated p/p service providers - to take place within the existing system and possibly using existing keys. This is an important gap to fill from a Registrant perspective -- and a great discussion that should be continued!
Best, Kathy
:
I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay.
On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer’s ability to transfer to another registrar? (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.)
If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion.
Steve Metalitz
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Maria Farrell *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names
Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary,
Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful.
Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy.
Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered.
Many thanks to James for the presentation.
All the best, Maria
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (7)
-
James M. Bladel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Maria Farrell -
Metalitz, Steven -
Tim Ruiz -
Volker Greimann -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.