@EXT RE: Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. 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 Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************
Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. 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 Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. 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 Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Hi Luc, I admit to now being confused. Are you suggesting that ICANN will be given access to the privacy service's customer information in order to verify the customer address? For example, if the email address published in the WHOIS is customer123456789@exampleprivacyservice.com and the underlying customer email address is examplecustomer@exampleemailservice.com and an email to the WHOIS email address bounces, are you anticipating that the PP service will have to disclose the examplecustomer@exampleemailservice.com email address to ICANN Compliance for ICANN Compliance to check to see if that email is functional? If so, what are the timeframes in which the PP service has to make that disclosure and what are the timeframes for ICANN to act on that information and is ICANN interested in taking on this new role? Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:49 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 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.
Hi Paul, My turn to be confused. Why would ICANN need to be provided with the underlying email address? What matters is that the email address published in the whois doesn’t allow to reach the registrant. No need to dig further. The timeframe for the registrar to investigate and suspend is the same as any other whois inaccuracy complaint. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:01, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Luc, I admit to now being confused. Are you suggesting that ICANN will be given access to the privacy service's customer information in order to verify the customer address? For example, if the email address published in the WHOIS is customer123456789@exampleprivacyservice.com<mailto:customer123456789@exampleprivacyservice.com> and the underlying customer email address is examplecustomer@exampleemailservice.com<mailto:examplecustomer@exampleemailservice.com> and an email to the WHOIS email address bounces, are you anticipating that the PP service will have to disclose the examplecustomer@exampleemailservice.com<mailto:examplecustomer@exampleemailservice.com> email address to ICANN Compliance for ICANN Compliance to check to see if that email is functional? If so, what are the timeframes in which the PP service has to make that disclosure and what are the timeframes for ICANN to act on that information and is ICANN interested in taking on this new role? Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:49 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email><mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/><http://www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/>><http://www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com/>> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net><http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com><mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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> 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> 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 ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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 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. ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Registrar -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Registrar -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. 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 guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. ) -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Registrar -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. 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 wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. ) -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Registrar -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service? -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
In such case the domain name registered with the nonsensical email addresses would in theory only be activated for a maximum of 14 days. (which is the RAA delay for a registrant to validation its email address). But I suppose that many registrars have implemented this obligation like we did and require the email addresses to be verified by the registrant prior to the domain name activation. While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so. As other pointed out in the past during our calls, criminals are using valid details nowadays their goal is not to be detected by automated anti-fraud tools. A few years ago we could prevent the majority of domain names registrations used only for phishing attacks. Now they are really hard to detect as bad actors are getting incredibly resourceful. Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:44, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Luc. I don't understand this part of your comment: " While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so." If the accuracy compliance is shifted to the registrar, why would the PP's accreditation be at risk for posting non-sense WHOIS information? If there was a rule against it, and they did it, surely ICANN would want to enforce against the PP and not the registrar, at least at first? But your construct doesn't call for any such restriction, so what is ICANN's recourse to terminate the PP's accreditation? Also, what happens to the innocent PP customer who signs up with a gamer and loses his/her registration at the end of 14 days? I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm trying to understand why we would want to adopt a model that relieves PP services of the obligation to publish functioning email addresses and then shift the burden of initial cleanup to registrars (I understand registrars may still be stuck with ultimate cleanup, but in the case that PP services have an obligation to ensure that all published email addresses function, the registrar could complain to ICANN and insist on compliance action against the PP service that is causing it so much work). PS: As we all know, a lot of mischief can be accomplished in 14 days. -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:05 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Michele Neylon; Don Blumenthal; Steven J. Metalitz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussiononhardbounces, and deciding on terminology In such case the domain name registered with the nonsensical email addresses would in theory only be activated for a maximum of 14 days. (which is the RAA delay for a registrant to validation its email address). But I suppose that many registrars have implemented this obligation like we did and require the email addresses to be verified by the registrant prior to the domain name activation. While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so. As other pointed out in the past during our calls, criminals are using valid details nowadays their goal is not to be detected by automated anti-fraud tools. A few years ago we could prevent the majority of domain names registrations used only for phishing attacks. Now they are really hard to detect as bad actors are getting incredibly resourceful. Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:44, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Hi Paul, how can we shift an obligation to an entity that has no ability to verify or enforce it? In many registrations we see where a privacy proxy registration is used that we do not provide, we have no way to see beyond the data that is in the whois. Only the p/p provider has the underlying data. Only he can therefore enforce accuracy. Volker Am 05.12.2014 17:29, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks Luc. I don't understand this part of your comment:
" While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so."
If the accuracy compliance is shifted to the registrar, why would the PP's accreditation be at risk for posting non-sense WHOIS information? If there was a rule against it, and they did it, surely ICANN would want to enforce against the PP and not the registrar, at least at first? But your construct doesn't call for any such restriction, so what is ICANN's recourse to terminate the PP's accreditation? Also, what happens to the innocent PP customer who signs up with a gamer and loses his/her registration at the end of 14 days?
I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm trying to understand why we would want to adopt a model that relieves PP services of the obligation to publish functioning email addresses and then shift the burden of initial cleanup to registrars (I understand registrars may still be stuck with ultimate cleanup, but in the case that PP services have an obligation to ensure that all published email addresses function, the registrar could complain to ICANN and insist on compliance action against the PP service that is causing it so much work).
PS: As we all know, a lot of mischief can be accomplished in 14 days.
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:05 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Michele Neylon; Don Blumenthal; Steven J. Metalitz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussiononhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
In such case the domain name registered with the nonsensical email addresses would in theory only be activated for a maximum of 14 days. (which is the RAA delay for a registrant to validation its email address). But I suppose that many registrars have implemented this obligation like we did and require the email addresses to be verified by the registrant prior to the domain name activation.
While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so.
As other pointed out in the past during our calls, criminals are using valid details nowadays their goal is not to be detected by automated anti-fraud tools. A few years ago we could prevent the majority of domain names registrations used only for phishing attacks. Now they are really hard to detect as bad actors are getting incredibly resourceful.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:44, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------- 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Volker: I agree with this statement: "Only he [the pp provider] can therefore enforce accuracy." If there is a requirement that PP providers publish accurate email addresses and there is a bounce back, the obligation remains with the PP service to determine where the inaccuracy is and then to fix it so that it is correct. "Only he [the pp provider] can therefore enforce accuracy." If ultimately the PP provider fails to either or both of these two things, the interested party can write to ICANN Compliance about it and seek a breach notice. The interested party can also write to ICANN compliance about it and ask ICANN to tell the registrar to suspend/cancel the registration. After all "Only he [the pp provider] can therefore enforce accuracy." Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:34 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussiononhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hi Paul, how can we shift an obligation to an entity that has no ability to verify or enforce it? In many registrations we see where a privacy proxy registration is used that we do not provide, we have no way to see beyond the data that is in the whois. Only the p/p provider has the underlying data. Only he can therefore enforce accuracy. Volker Am 05.12.2014 17:29, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks Luc. I don't understand this part of your comment:
" While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so."
If the accuracy compliance is shifted to the registrar, why would the PP's accreditation be at risk for posting non-sense WHOIS information? If there was a rule against it, and they did it, surely ICANN would want to enforce against the PP and not the registrar, at least at first? But your construct doesn't call for any such restriction, so what is ICANN's recourse to terminate the PP's accreditation? Also, what happens to the innocent PP customer who signs up with a gamer and loses his/her registration at the end of 14 days?
I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm trying to understand why we would want to adopt a model that relieves PP services of the obligation to publish functioning email addresses and then shift the burden of initial cleanup to registrars (I understand registrars may still be stuck with ultimate cleanup, but in the case that PP services have an obligation to ensure that all published email addresses function, the registrar could complain to ICANN and insist on compliance action against the PP service that is causing it so much work).
PS: As we all know, a lot of mischief can be accomplished in 14 days.
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:05 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Michele Neylon; Don Blumenthal; Steven J. Metalitz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussiononhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
In such case the domain name registered with the nonsensical email addresses would in theory only be activated for a maximum of 14 days. (which is the RAA delay for a registrant to validation its email address). But I suppose that many registrars have implemented this obligation like we did and require the email addresses to be verified by the registrant prior to the domain name activation.
While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so.
As other pointed out in the past during our calls, criminals are using valid details nowadays their goal is not to be detected by automated anti-fraud tools. A few years ago we could prevent the majority of domain names registrations used only for phishing attacks. Now they are really hard to detect as bad actors are getting incredibly resourceful.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:44, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodn s.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro pa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro pa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgr oup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------- 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. _______________________________________________ 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 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.
Actually there is no shift operated here. The fact that the email address published in the whois is owned by the registrant or a PP provider is irrelevant. It will go through the same verification process that the registrar is bound to operate. As to the consequences for the PP provider, I thought we agreed that their involvement in the registration of a domain name should be mentioned in the whois. Thus I am quite sure that a repeat offender would come on Compliance Radar and would trigger the applicable measures. Regarding the PP customer who is being scammed by the unscrupulous PP provider, they would not have their domain name deleted but suspended. They would therefore just need to contact their registrar to appoint an accurate email address, go through the verification process and have their domain reactivated. Lastly regarding the 14 days it only relates to whois inaccuracy, if the domain name is used in a blatantly illegal fashion there are - as you know - other routes and grounds to take it down. Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Luc. I don't understand this part of your comment:
" While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so."
If the accuracy compliance is shifted to the registrar, why would the PP's accreditation be at risk for posting non-sense WHOIS information? If there was a rule against it, and they did it, surely ICANN would want to enforce against the PP and not the registrar, at least at first? But your construct doesn't call for any such restriction, so what is ICANN's recourse to terminate the PP's accreditation? Also, what happens to the innocent PP customer who signs up with a gamer and loses his/her registration at the end of 14 days?
I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm trying to understand why we would want to adopt a model that relieves PP services of the obligation to publish functioning email addresses and then shift the burden of initial cleanup to registrars (I understand registrars may still be stuck with ultimate cleanup, but in the case that PP services have an obligation to ensure that all published email addresses function, the registrar could complain to ICANN and insist on compliance action against the PP service that is causing it so much work).
PS: As we all know, a lot of mischief can be accomplished in 14 days.
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:05 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Michele Neylon; Don Blumenthal; Steven J. Metalitz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussiononhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
In such case the domain name registered with the nonsensical email addresses would in theory only be activated for a maximum of 14 days. (which is the RAA delay for a registrant to validation its email address). But I suppose that many registrars have implemented this obligation like we did and require the email addresses to be verified by the registrant prior to the domain name activation.
While PP providers not caring about their ICANN PP accreditation - I still have faith we will see the end of this WG - could try to pull such stunt, I don’t see any benefit doing so.
As other pointed out in the past during our calls, criminals are using valid details nowadays their goal is not to be detected by automated anti-fraud tools. A few years ago we could prevent the majority of domain names registrations used only for phishing attacks. Now they are really hard to detect as bad actors are getting incredibly resourceful.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:44, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------- 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.
________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Depends. If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional. Volker Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services? -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Depends. If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional. Volker Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europ a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europ a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgro up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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.
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data. VG Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europ a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europ a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgro up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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.
-- 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.
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level. This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information. -----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data. VG Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodn s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgr o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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.
-- 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. 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.
Hi Paul, I do not agree that any risk is shifted, in fact the situation is exactly as it is now. Of course the p/p provider must have a working address in the whois, and the registrar must validate it and enforce its accuracy. What happens below that level is the obligation and responsibility of the p/p service. If the inaccurate address is that of the privacy service, you will get a bounce. Volker Am 05.12.2014 17:40, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level.
This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information.
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data.
VG
Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodn s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgr o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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. -- 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.
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.
-- 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 would like to thank Volker, Luc and Michele for engaging in a robust dialogue on this issue. While I don't think they changed my mind that there should be an affirmative accreditation requirement for PP to ensure that the email address they publish in the WHOIS is functional which can be enforced by ICANN, I have appreciated the civil tone and willingness to share ideas. While I have to turn my attention to other matters now, I didn't want the dialogue to end without a note of thanks. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:47 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hi Paul, I do not agree that any risk is shifted, in fact the situation is exactly as it is now. Of course the p/p provider must have a working address in the whois, and the registrar must validate it and enforce its accuracy. What happens below that level is the obligation and responsibility of the p/p service. If the inaccurate address is that of the privacy service, you will get a bounce. Volker Am 05.12.2014 17:40, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level.
This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information.
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data.
VG
Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurod n s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclg r o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounc e /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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. -- 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.
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.
-- 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. 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.
Hi Paul, thank you for your kind words. We are not that far apart, I also think the address in the whois should be accurate and functonal or result in a suspension of the domain if not. The only question is what happens beyond that. As a private domain owner: - Am I required to read a message directed to my whois address? No! - Am I allowed to auto-forward it to spam/trash? Yes! - Am I allowed to set up a gmail account for my whois that I never log into after I verify the address? Yes! We are no saying a p/p service should not look at its email. It should, in my view, forward all reasonable communications to the domain owner. But I do not see how this can be checked and enforced without compromising the identity of the registrant. Sure, ICANN could send the provider a request to show them he forwarded the mail, but that would mean revealing the registrant to ICANN. Less than ideal, IMHO. So realistically, for the sender there is no way of knowing if the underlying registrant has received the mail and ignored it, or if he has not received it. I realize this is less than satisfactory for the complainant to send a mail into a black hole, but what are the alternatives? Volker Am 05.12.2014 17:55, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I would like to thank Volker, Luc and Michele for engaging in a robust dialogue on this issue. While I don't think they changed my mind that there should be an affirmative accreditation requirement for PP to ensure that the email address they publish in the WHOIS is functional which can be enforced by ICANN, I have appreciated the civil tone and willingness to share ideas. While I have to turn my attention to other matters now, I didn't want the dialogue to end without a note of thanks.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:47 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hi Paul,
I do not agree that any risk is shifted, in fact the situation is exactly as it is now. Of course the p/p provider must have a working address in the whois, and the registrar must validate it and enforce its accuracy. What happens below that level is the obligation and responsibility of the p/p service. If the inaccurate address is that of the privacy service, you will get a bounce.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:40, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level.
This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information.
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data.
VG
Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurod n s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclg r o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounc e /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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. -- 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.
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. -- 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.
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.
-- 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.
We have shifted focus to the issue of unresponsiveness again in which there is no disagreement. Lets refocus on the requirements around when the P/P service provider receives "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address” (or whatever). When this happens the P/P must inform the requestor of this fact. If there is no such requirement then there is no way for the requestor to become aware that WHOIS data has become inaccurate and subsequently file a ticket with ICANN compliance. Alex
On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Hi Paul,
thank you for your kind words.
We are not that far apart, I also think the address in the whois should be accurate and functonal or result in a suspension of the domain if not. The only question is what happens beyond that. As a private domain owner: - Am I required to read a message directed to my whois address? No! - Am I allowed to auto-forward it to spam/trash? Yes! - Am I allowed to set up a gmail account for my whois that I never log into after I verify the address? Yes!
We are no saying a p/p service should not look at its email. It should, in my view, forward all reasonable communications to the domain owner. But I do not see how this can be checked and enforced without compromising the identity of the registrant. Sure, ICANN could send the provider a request to show them he forwarded the mail, but that would mean revealing the registrant to ICANN. Less than ideal, IMHO. So realistically, for the sender there is no way of knowing if the underlying registrant has received the mail and ignored it, or if he has not received it.
I realize this is less than satisfactory for the complainant to send a mail into a black hole, but what are the alternatives?
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:55, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I would like to thank Volker, Luc and Michele for engaging in a robust dialogue on this issue. While I don't think they changed my mind that there should be an affirmative accreditation requirement for PP to ensure that the email address they publish in the WHOIS is functional which can be enforced by ICANN, I have appreciated the civil tone and willingness to share ideas. While I have to turn my attention to other matters now, I didn't want the dialogue to end without a note of thanks.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:47 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hi Paul,
I do not agree that any risk is shifted, in fact the situation is exactly as it is now. Of course the p/p provider must have a working address in the whois, and the registrar must validate it and enforce its accuracy. What happens below that level is the obligation and responsibility of the p/p service. If the inaccurate address is that of the privacy service, you will get a bounce.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:40, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level.
This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information.
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data.
VG
Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurod n s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclg r o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounc e /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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. -- 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.
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. -- 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.
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.
-- 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
Actually, I disagree. Instead of notifying the requestor, the provider may also contact the registrant by another means and get him to correct the address and then forward the message or terminate the service. There is no absolute requirement to inform the complainant of what is essentially an internal contractual issue between the provider and his customer. Best, Volker Am 05.12.2014 19:23, schrieb Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org:
We have shifted focus to the issue of unresponsiveness again in which there is no disagreement.
Lets refocus on the requirements around when the P/P service provider receives "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address” (or whatever).
When this happens the P/P must inform the requestor of this fact. If there is no such requirement then there is no way for the requestor to become aware that WHOIS data has become inaccurate and subsequently file a ticket with ICANN compliance.
Alex
On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Hi Paul,
thank you for your kind words.
We are not that far apart, I also think the address in the whois should be accurate and functonal or result in a suspension of the domain if not. The only question is what happens beyond that. As a private domain owner: - Am I required to read a message directed to my whois address? No! - Am I allowed to auto-forward it to spam/trash? Yes! - Am I allowed to set up a gmail account for my whois that I never log into after I verify the address? Yes!
We are no saying a p/p service should not look at its email. It should, in my view, forward all reasonable communications to the domain owner. But I do not see how this can be checked and enforced without compromising the identity of the registrant. Sure, ICANN could send the provider a request to show them he forwarded the mail, but that would mean revealing the registrant to ICANN. Less than ideal, IMHO. So realistically, for the sender there is no way of knowing if the underlying registrant has received the mail and ignored it, or if he has not received it.
I realize this is less than satisfactory for the complainant to send a mail into a black hole, but what are the alternatives?
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:55, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I would like to thank Volker, Luc and Michele for engaging in a robust dialogue on this issue. While I don't think they changed my mind that there should be an affirmative accreditation requirement for PP to ensure that the email address they publish in the WHOIS is functional which can be enforced by ICANN, I have appreciated the civil tone and willingness to share ideas. While I have to turn my attention to other matters now, I didn't want the dialogue to end without a note of thanks.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:47 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hi Paul,
I do not agree that any risk is shifted, in fact the situation is exactly as it is now. Of course the p/p provider must have a working address in the whois, and the registrar must validate it and enforce its accuracy. What happens below that level is the obligation and responsibility of the p/p service. If the inaccurate address is that of the privacy service, you will get a bounce.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:40, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level.
This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information.
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data.
VG
Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurod n s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclg r o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail t o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounc e /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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. -- 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.
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. -- 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.
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. -- 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
-- 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.
Volker, The minimum standard should be that the P/P must notify the requestor when it receives "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address”. Without this there is no transparency regarding the operation of the p/p service. Clearly if the P/P wants to be proactive and contact their customer in an attempt to correct the issue in addition then by all means they should. I’ll also note that from a technical point of view P/P services that do not correctly relay any "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address” are intentionally changing the way email works. We should not be creating policy that allows or encourages this. Regards, Alex
On Dec 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Actually, I disagree.
Instead of notifying the requestor, the provider may also contact the registrant by another means and get him to correct the address and then forward the message or terminate the service. There is no absolute requirement to inform the complainant of what is essentially an internal contractual issue between the provider and his customer.
Best,
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 19:23, schrieb Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org:
We have shifted focus to the issue of unresponsiveness again in which there is no disagreement.
Lets refocus on the requirements around when the P/P service provider receives "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address” (or whatever).
When this happens the P/P must inform the requestor of this fact. If there is no such requirement then there is no way for the requestor to become aware that WHOIS data has become inaccurate and subsequently file a ticket with ICANN compliance.
Alex
On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Hi Paul,
thank you for your kind words.
We are not that far apart, I also think the address in the whois should be accurate and functonal or result in a suspension of the domain if not. The only question is what happens beyond that. As a private domain owner: - Am I required to read a message directed to my whois address? No! - Am I allowed to auto-forward it to spam/trash? Yes! - Am I allowed to set up a gmail account for my whois that I never log into after I verify the address? Yes!
We are no saying a p/p service should not look at its email. It should, in my view, forward all reasonable communications to the domain owner. But I do not see how this can be checked and enforced without compromising the identity of the registrant. Sure, ICANN could send the provider a request to show them he forwarded the mail, but that would mean revealing the registrant to ICANN. Less than ideal, IMHO. So realistically, for the sender there is no way of knowing if the underlying registrant has received the mail and ignored it, or if he has not received it.
I realize this is less than satisfactory for the complainant to send a mail into a black hole, but what are the alternatives?
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:55, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I would like to thank Volker, Luc and Michele for engaging in a robust dialogue on this issue. While I don't think they changed my mind that there should be an affirmative accreditation requirement for PP to ensure that the email address they publish in the WHOIS is functional which can be enforced by ICANN, I have appreciated the civil tone and willingness to share ideas. While I have to turn my attention to other matters now, I didn't want the dialogue to end without a note of thanks.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:47 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hi Paul,
I do not agree that any risk is shifted, in fact the situation is exactly as it is now. Of course the p/p provider must have a working address in the whois, and the registrar must validate it and enforce its accuracy. What happens below that level is the obligation and responsibility of the p/p service. If the inaccurate address is that of the privacy service, you will get a bounce.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 17:40, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
So the cleanup work is shifted to the registrars and the risk of non-information is shifted to the interested party all in order to avoid having a requirement that the PP service publish working email. If such a requirement were in place and the interested party gets a timely notice of non-delivery, then the interested party would know that the problem is with the underlying WHOIS information (assuming the PP service is a good actor). Absent the requirement, there is no way to know if the inaccurate email is at the publication level or the underlying customer data level.
This would be a great model for rogue PP services or PP services who are looking for registrars to hire more compliance staff so that they don't have to do so, but I'm not sure how the rest of the DNS ecosystem will feel about having all the risks and burdens shifted to them so that PP services don't have to publish accurate email information.
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data.
VG
Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: > I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal. > > Best, > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > I guess I'd say - yes > There's already the requirement > If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email > address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint > which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the > privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. > ) > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.blacknight.press/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Social: http://mneylon.social > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. > Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Registrar > > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.blacknight.press/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Social: http://mneylon.social > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. > Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. > > If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. > The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email > on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation > is the same > > So I agree with Luc > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.blacknight.press/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Social: http://mneylon.social > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM > To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. > > Best, > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don > Blumenthal > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM > To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Luc, > > It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. > > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM > To: Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion > onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Hello Steve, > > I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. > > If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. > > Luc > > > > On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: > > Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. > > Steve Metalitz > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM > To: Leaning, Richard > Cc: Metalitz, Steven; > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion > on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology > > Hello Richard > > Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. > > The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. > > Best Wishes, > > Luc > > > // Luc Seufer > Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS > > office: +352 26 37 25-166 > mobile: +352 691 600 417 > fax: +352 20 300 166 > lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurod > n > s > .com> | > www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> > > 2, rue Léon Laval > L-3372 Leudelange > Luxembourg > > On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: > > > > Richard Leaning > Cyber Community Engagement > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > Europol > > Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 > Office +31 70 3531630 > Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur > o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leaning, Richard > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time > To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' > Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard > bounces, and deciding on terminology > > My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. > > Cheers > > Dick > > > > Richard Leaning > Cyber Community Engagement > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > Europol > > Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 > Office +31 70 3531630 > Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.eur > o p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luc SEUFER > [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclg > r > o > up.eu>] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time > To: Steven J. Metalitz > Cc: > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail > t > o > :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard > bounces, and deciding on terminology > > > But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. > > It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider > to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) > > Luc > > > On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: > > Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. > > From: > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces > @ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie > Perrin > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM > To: > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mail > t > o > :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard > bounces, and deciding on terminology > > Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. > Cheers Stephanie > On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: > > Colleagues, > > I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. > > As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. > > There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: > > http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounc > e > / > > I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. > > > ------------------------- > Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice > Chief Operations Officer, ServInt > www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax > ------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. > _______________________________________________ > 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 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. -- 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.
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. -- 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.
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. -- 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
-- 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.
We have a few issues left to consider on this top, one of which we didn't address on Tuesday. I plan a longer message later that will lay out a few remaining questions from the last couple of weeks, but since I have an opening for one here.... This thread discusses a requestor seeing a bounce. From the template list for unresolved E questions: "Notification may be by means of a technical mechanism or other means that relays notice of the delivery failure to the requestor and/or provides the requestor with alternate ways to escalate the issue." Some WG members raised concerns awhile back about whether a bounce message may reveal the identity of the underlying registrant. Does the /"or" resolve the potential problems? Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 11:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Well, if he sees the bounce, the bounce notice may tell him where the bounce occured. If he does not see the bounce, he would not know whether the message reached the recipient or not, but then there is no way of changing that without compromising the privacy of the registrant. that does not change the fact that the obligation should be placed on the p/p provider to enforce accuracy of the underlying data. VG Am 05.12.2014 17:20, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks. How is the information about where the failure occurred made public such that the interested party knows to file a complaint with ICANN Compliance to be directed to the registrar or to be directed to the PP services?
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Depends.
If the email address listed in the whois fails, it is a whois failure so the registrar is the right point of contact. If the email bounces somewhere after the privacy service provider has forwarded it, i.e. the email address in the whois is correct, it becomes the obligation of the p/p service provider to ensure the underlying address is functional.
Volker
Am 05.12.2014 16:44, schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
I wonder how other registrars would feel about that? What if there were an accredited privacy service that only put non-sense in email addresses and registrars spent their days responding to ICANN Compliance requests? The PP service would be shifting its costs to the registrars and the registrars would be getting nothing other than extremely manual, cost inefficient customers. What am I missing? I'd like to understand Luc's proposal.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
I guess I'd say - yes There's already the requirement If you email thing@domain.tld and it bounces and that is the email address in whois then you can submit a whois accuracy complaint which will fall to the registrar who can then pass it to either the privacy service or the registrant (depending on what the relationships are .. )
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:37 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks. So is the suggestion that accuracy compliance related to whatever email PP services publish be redirected to registrars?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Registrar
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:30 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks Michele. When you saw "we" do you mean registrar or privacy service?
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodn s .com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.euro p a.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgr o up.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ i cann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce /
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 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.
-- 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
Right. So if this is the case then its important that the "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address” (or whatever we decide to call it) is returned by the P/P service to the original sender. Without this no WHOIS inaccuracy compliance process can take place. Alex
On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
So I agree with Luc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 seems to me that it would be a stretch for Compliance to take this approach in a p/p situation now that ICANN has, in effect, formally recognized p/p arrangements. I know. Which doesn't meant it wouldn't happen. -----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:25 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance. If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it. The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same So I agree with Luc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM To: Don Blumenthal; Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Correct. So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate. Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Luc, It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users. Don -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Steve, I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated. If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one. Luc On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology Hello Richard Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data. The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same. Best Wishes, Luc // Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com> 2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether. Cheers Dick Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu> -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Don, Who owns the alias published in the whois doesn’t matter. As long as it allows to reach the registrant. Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 16:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> wrote:
Luc,
It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Steve,
I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.
If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk@seufer.email<mailto:junk@seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.
Luc
On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------
INdeed. SP On 2014-12-05, 9:22, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.
Steve Metalitz
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Leaning, Richard Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology
Hello Richard
Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.
The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.
Best Wishes,
Luc
// Luc Seufer Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS
office: +352 26 37 25-166 mobile: +352 691 600 417 fax: +352 20 300 166 lseufer@eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer@eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com>
2, rue Léon Laval L-3372 Leudelange Luxembourg
On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu>> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu>
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu>] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
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 Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
*******************
DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
*******************
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Richard- and sort not to get back sooner. Yes, the registrant has a responsibility to provide correct information. But under the 2013 RAA, the registrar also has responsibilities for verification. I won’t go into details here, but both the amended RAA itself and the Whois accuracy specifications etc do give some responsibility for accurate information to the registrars. Holly On 5 Dec 2014, at 9:01 pm, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning@europol.europa.eu> wrote:
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu
-----Original Message----- From: Leaning, Richard Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz' Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.
Cheers
Dick
Richard Leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol
Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079 Office +31 70 3531630 Richard.leaning@europol.europa.eu
-----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time To: Steven J. Metalitz Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.
It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)
Luc
On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here.
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 Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
*******************
DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
******************* _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (10)
-
Alex_Deacon＠mpaa.org -
Don Blumenthal -
Holly Raiche -
Leaning, Richard -
Luc SEUFER -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Metalitz, Steven -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Stephanie Perrin -
Volker Greimann