Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
Dear All, Please find below the notes from today’s RDS PDP WG meeting. Please take particular note of the action items. Best regards, Marika Notes 21/9 – RDS PDP WG Meeting These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/C4xlAw. 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Continue discussion on Statement of Purpose Review and comment on draft purpose statement · Posted at https://community.icann.org/x/XQK4Aw · Does this statement presuppose that access will be granted to registration data? That is, taking off the table the possibility that there might not be access to the data? Distinction between a data service and a directory service - this seems to imply there would be a directory service to enable access. · Proposed edit: delete registration data from the first sentence, leaving only "This statement is intended to define the purpose of a Registration Directory Service (RDS) for generic TLD domain names." · In second paragraph, proposed edit to delete "and services related to them" - for example, a service such as WhoWas might be going beyond the scope of an RDS or the core purpose. · Alternatively, add ", if any" after services. Place phrase in brackets: "[and services related to them, if any]" · Is there an assumption that a registries are thick (current consensus policy)? Noted that RWhoIs is core to any thin registry (although the RDS shouldn't necessarily make a distinction between thick or thin registries) · With regard to consensus policy, there can be changes proposed by this WG which would affect future consensus policy (and the RAA), if approved by the GNSO Council and adopted · Does this cover (1) all data collected by registrars, or (2) just the data collected in the relationship between registrars to registries and in the relationship between registrars/registries and ICANN? (the latter #2) · Should we assume that privacy/proxy works the same way as now? No, P/P policies are a moving target (PPSAI is now in IRT) and will evolve between now and when RDS policies are proposed/adopted. The issue with privacy/proxy is whether or not we write the policy to say that we have to know who the registrant is or whether it is an access point. · Comment from last call, reflected in discussion below: "First, having a list of purposes / accommodating multiple purposes. Second something that can be communicated readily to registrants and others. And third, something that you can use to establish a relationship between the stated purpose and a proposed or actual use." · Under overall goals, this should be talking about access to repositories of registration data · Proposed addition to overall goals: statement that could be readily communicated to registrants, statement that establishes a relationship between purpose and the RDS, statement that may contain multiple purposes. [Note these are currently listed under prerequisite conditions v, vi -- proposal is to move those under Overall Goals, tweaked appropriately]. For example: · d. To communicate purpose(s) of the RDS to registrants (and others) · e. To establish sufficient relationship between the purpose(s) and the use(s) of the RDS · Questions raised as to whether these are goals for the statement of purpose, or goals for the purpose of the RDS itself · Regarding paragraph 2, the first sentence combines (1) the purpose of registration data and why it's collected, and (2) the purpose of a system that allows access to it. · Possible alternative: "the system that collects, maintains, and provides or denies access to some or all of those data elements" · Due to data protection laws, do we need to be careful to state clearly the purpose of collection, access, etc - is that our goal here? Are we getting into the weeds where we don't have to? · One of the things we're trying to accomplish is to create a legal basis for compliance with data protection laws - is that our job or is that something that happens later by legal review? · We need to be conscious of data protection restrictions and requirements, so that proposed policies don't end up being illegal//non-compliant. · Shouldn't privacy issue be discussed separately, especially in the context of sale of data? Action Item #1: Staff to apply above edits as redline for WG review and discussion on the full WG list, noting with comments that proposed move was not resolved, as well as data protection law question above. 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting Action item #4: For those WG members that have outstanding requirements to review documents for possible requirements, please do so as soon as possible or indicate that you are no longer able to do so, so that these can be assigned to someone else. See https://community.icann.org/x/shOOAw. 4. Confirm next meeting (Tuesday 27 September at 16.00 UTC) Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list * Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") * Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings * Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list * Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") * Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings * Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list * Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") * Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings * Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
Thanks Greg. I suggest that we not delete this one and ask the WG if they support adding the implied possible requirement as you suggest. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
Hi Greg, you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose. Best, Volker Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron:
Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it.
*From:*Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM *To:* Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement?
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com <mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote:
Dear Chuck:
It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence.
BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks.
So I suggest we leave it in.
All best,
--Greg
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all.
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
Dear all,
With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS.
Best regards, Lisa
At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote:
/3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list /· Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them
*Action item #2*: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations.
*Action item #3*: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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.
A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications. Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it's not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists - the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability. Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of "possible requirements." The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Hi Greg, you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose. Best, Volker Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron: Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><mailto:gca@icginc.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Should an additional possible requirement (or requirements) be added to cover the UDRP and URS need or is that already covered? Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:55 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications. Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it's not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists - the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability. Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of "possible requirements." The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Hi Greg, you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose. Best, Volker Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron: Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><mailto:gca@icginc.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Not sure if necessary as cases are regularly brought against domains under privacy services where the real registrant is unknown as well, but as we are not dicussing merits quite yet: Sure, why not? ;-) VG Am 22.09.2016 um 16:59 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:
Should an additional possible requirement (or requirements) be added to cover the UDRP and URS need or is that already covered?
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Aaron *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:55 AM *To:* Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications.
Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it’s not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists – the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability.
Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of “possible requirements.” The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later.
All best,
--Greg
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
Hi Greg,
you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose.
Best,
Volker
Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron:
Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it.
*From:*Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM *To:* Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> <mailto:gca@icginc.com> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement?
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com <mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote:
Dear Chuck:
It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence.
BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks.
So I suggest we leave it in.
All best,
--Greg
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all.
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
Dear all,
With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS.
Best regards, Lisa
At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote:
/3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list /· Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them
*Action item #2*: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations.
*Action item #3*: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Chuck, I would think that this is already covered in our list. If it's not already covered (which would surprise me), it certainly must. Greg On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Should an additional possible requirement (or requirements) be added to cover the UDRP and URS need or is that already covered?
Chuck
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Aaron *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:55 AM *To:* Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications.
Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it’s not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists – the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability.
Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of “possible requirements.” The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later.
All best,
--Greg
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
Hi Greg,
you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose.
Best,
Volker
Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron:
Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it.
*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com <cgomes@verisign.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM *To:* Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> <gca@icginc.com> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement?
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> wrote:
Dear Chuck:
It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence.
BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks.
So I suggest we leave it in.
All best,
--Greg
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all.
Chuck
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
Dear all,
With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS.
Best regards, Lisa
At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote:
*3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list *· Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them
*Action item #2*: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations.
*Action item #3*: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I agree Greg. Just want to make sure. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:29 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Aaron; Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Chuck, I would think that this is already covered in our list. If it's not already covered (which would surprise me), it certainly must. Greg On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Should an additional possible requirement (or requirements) be added to cover the UDRP and URS need or is that already covered? Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:55 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications. Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it’s not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists – the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability. Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of “possible requirements.” The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Hi Greg, you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose. Best, Volker Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron: Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><mailto:gca@icginc.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Dear Chuck: I submitted a summary of UDRP's relation to RDS to the list back in April; Lisa's spreadsheet captures an entry about it at UP-D16-R01. All best, --Greg From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:59 AM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Should an additional possible requirement (or requirements) be added to cover the UDRP and URS need or is that already covered? Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:55 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications. Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it's not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists - the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability. Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of "possible requirements." The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Hi Greg, you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose. Best, Volker Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron: Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><mailto:gca@icginc.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thanks Greg. What about the URS? Chuck From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gca@icginc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear Chuck: I submitted a summary of UDRP's relation to RDS to the list back in April; Lisa's spreadsheet captures an entry about it at UP-D16-R01. All best, --Greg From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:59 AM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Should an additional possible requirement (or requirements) be added to cover the UDRP and URS need or is that already covered? Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:55 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting A parallel case: The UDRP and URS policies rely on contact data that is published publicly in gTLD registration directory services. The reason is so identify that potential complainants can see it and make decisions about whether to mount a challenge, and so that UDRP and URS dispute resolution service providers can use the data to send the required communications. Could UDRP be altered to work without published contact data? Maybe it's not impossible. But we can probably agree that the requirement currently exists - the current policy task assumes and necessitates data availability. Besides, the exercise here is for the WG to compile a list of "possible requirements." The group agreed to be liberal in the listings and debate their merits later. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:27 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Hi Greg, you said it would be difficult but not it would be impossible, right? So I would assume the contractual requirement would still be accomplishable even without special access. A lot of the required data would also be in the registry databases as well, such as nameserver data, registration dates, etc, so no access to the RDS would be required for that purpose. Best, Volker Am 22.09.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Greg Aaron: Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><mailto:gca@icginc.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement? Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck: It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence. BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks. So I suggest we leave it in. All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting Dear all, With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS. Best regards, Lisa At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote: 3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list · Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??") · Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings · Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations. Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (6)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Aaron -
Greg Shatan -
Lisa Phifer -
Marika Konings -
Volker Greimann