- RDS-WHOIS2-Privacy-Proxy - lists.icann.org

Rec10 Subgroup - Draft for updates
by Lisa Phifer Aug. 2, 2018

Aug. 2, 2018

Dear Volker, Attached please find an updated draft of the Rec10 Privacy/Proxy subgroup's section, including all F2F#3 agreements. Please use the attached to carry out your assigned action items this week, remembering to leave 'track changes' on to redline your edits. Alice will be distributing the meeting report with a list of action items and due dates separately. Best Regards Lisa

2 2

Privacy/Proxy Services Subgroup call #3: Decisions Reached and Action Items
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez June 22, 2018

June 22, 2018

Dear Privacy/Proxy Services subgroup members, Following today’s subgroup call #3<https://community.icann.org/x/pYMpBQ>, please find below the identified action items and decisions reached: DECISIONS REACHED 1) The subgroup will follow the RT's agreement to not relegislate PDPs. Can raise concerns but should not make recommendations to modify PDP WG's recommendations prior to implementation. 2) Grandfathering is not a concept for PP registered domains but should be taken up in the data accuracy and compliance reports ACTION ITEMS 1) Volker to provide alternative text for Rec 10 Objective 6 referring to PPSAI PDP recommendation on CATEGORY B QUESTION 2, indicating this objective was taken into consideration in the PDP but it is not appropriate for the RT to comment on sufficiency of this until implementation is complete. The PPSAI PDP recommendation: WG Conclusion: The WG recommends that P/P service customer data be validated and verified in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in the WHOIS Accuracy Program Specification of the 2013 RAA (as updated from time to time). Moreover, in the cases where a P/P service provider is Affiliated with a registrar and that Affiliated registrar has carried out validation and verification of the P/P customer data, re-verification by the P/P service provider of the same, identical, information should not be required. 2) Additional issue related to grandfathering: (a) Volker to draft language regarding accuracy trigger in 2013 RAA for consideration by RT when data accuracy report is discussed (this will not to be addressed in PP report as "grandfathering" does not apply to PP registered domains) (b) Susan to revise Recommendation on grandfathering compliance in the Compliance Subgroup report to broaden it to include all policies and DN registrations 3) Volker to reword Issue #1 (cost/fees) as a brief comment but not a recommendation, since implementation is underway and it is not yet time to make any recommendation on this 4) Volker to reword Issue #2 (impact of GDPR) to clarify comment but make no recommendation 5) Volker to propose text for an issue on Abuse noting that PP abuse may occur and that a future review should include examining the impact of PP services on abuse. Consider whether this should lead to a recommendation that this be examined within 2 years after implementation/effective date of the policy - and/or collection of data to enable review. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

3 4

For Rec10 Subgroup call - updated report
by Lisa Phifer June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

PP Subgroup, At Volker's request, attached please find an updated subgroup report into which I have pasted the issue clarifications provided by Volker, along with some (but not all) of the comments exchanged on-list - particularly those related to Rec #10 objective #6. To summarize, the open items appear to be: - Rec #10 objective #6 on Page 5 (checks on customer contact information) - Volker's Issue #1 (fee structure) on Page7 - Volker's Issue #2 (GDPR impact) on Page7 - Lili's comment #2 (grandfathering) on Page 7 - Lili's comment #3 (potential abuse) on Page 7 Although the goal of the attached updated report was to give you all a single document for easy reference on Thursday's subgroup call, I found I could not include the full exchange in a way that would be very readable. As a result, you will still want to reach through the email threads for a complete review of all of the concerns expressed on these open items: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/2018-June/000597.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/2018-June/000632.html Regards Lisa

2 1

Fwd: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached
by Volker Greimann June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear Team, belated as it may be, I feel this mail from ICANN staff sent yesterday regarding the proposed fee structure of the program may also help give some background on the "fees" issue I referred to earlier. Best, Volker -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached Datum: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:11:26 +0000 Von: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org> Antwort an: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org An: gtheo <gtheo(a)xs4all.nl>, gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Dear Colleagues, Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation fees-related documentation, both on the list and during the meetings we have recently had on this topic. ICANN org has carefully considered the feedback of all IRT members in developing the proposed fee structure. Despite recommendations from some IRT members to reduce the proposed fees, ICANN org continues to believe that the fees proposed are reasonable and appropriate, for the reasons identified in the fees proposal documentation (attached). As noted in the fees proposal, ICANN org analyzed three relevant factors in reaching the fee structure that was proposed: relevant benchmarks; fees transparency, simplicity, stability and predictability; and anticipated program management costs. ICANN org understands that some IRT members disagree with this assessment, but did not find any of the arguments or suggestions raised by IRT members persuasive. If persuasive reasons are raised for revisiting the proposed fee structure during the public comment period, ICANN org commits to revisit the proposed fees. Please know that ICANN org sincerely appreciates the time and effort you committed to this exercise and the broader work of the IRT. Best, Amy -----Original Message----- From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:04 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP fees proposal document attached Thanks Amy, Am I reading this correctly? The program startup and application processing is going to cost; 1,117,390??? That is a huge amount of money for a program startup if only a few providers signup for this and the majority decides that the temporary spec or it's successor is enough privacy for registrants. But maybe I am reading it incorrectly. When I look at the Activity Relevant Department(s) Accredited Provider Account Management Services, it seems many of these activities already exist for Registrars. Can those activities not be handled by the same folks? I mean does it matter if a Registrar changes its name or a Privacy Provider? It's the same type of processing is it not? Also, a question about the PP Data Retention Waiver activity. What is this activity? Thanks, Theo Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-05-22 10:20 PM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached, you will find additional information related to the proposed > fees for the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation program. > Please review and send any comments/questions to the list. > > Thank you for your patience. > > Best, > > Amy > > AMY E. BIVINS > > Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager > > Registrar Services and Industry Relations > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 > > Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 > > Email: amy.bivins(a)icann.org > > www.icann.org [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=Dw > ICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-T > plkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=BJtpG8Olp_3NAmSVAsUTW_HmMsKblc3_3k59uUScn > vs&s=YBcBo-2U5vstASdpDcav-4W8w712XbFjerD180TrPRo&e= > _______________________________________________ > Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list > Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl -- 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(a)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(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Action Required: RDS-WHOIS2: Rec 10-Privacy/Proxy Doodle Poll
by MSSI Secretariat June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Hello Privacy/Proxy Services Subteam members! Please see doodle poll to assist in scheduling a Privacy/Proxy Services subgroup meeting this week. https://doodle.com/poll/8skrbd7e8qcspna7 Your timely response is greatly appreciated. The poll will close on Tuesday, 12 June @ 18:00 UTC and calendar invites will be sent accordingly. Many thanks! With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D40189.CE50B4D0] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107

1 0

Draft 4 - Privacy Proxy subgroup report
by Lisa Phifer June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

2 1

Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-Privacy-Proxy] [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Comments about the Subgroup Report of Privacy/Proxy Services
by Carlton Samuels June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Hi Lili: See my comments in line. ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:21 PM, SUN Lili <L.SUN(a)interpol.int> wrote: > Dear Privacy & Proxy subgroup members, > > > > I went through the draft report of this subgroup on wiki page ( > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604717) and > step in with my concerns: > > > > 1. To the Data Accuracy subgroup, the Whois accuracy of domain > names that utilize Privacy and Proxy Services is invisible. And Volker also > mentioned that this will be dealt with in the Privacy & Proxy subgroup. > Under current rules, the accredited P/P provider is obliged to ensure contactability of customer of his service. That this is the case cannot be verified independently and some of us have argued from inception this is a major hole in the agreement. We have alternately argued that there should be graded penalties for this violation after the fact. > As such, I strongly support Susan’s comments on “6 Conducting periodic due > diligence checks on customer contact information” and “8 Providing clear > and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered > name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy > environment.” There is no reason for a customer who chose P/P service thus > been protected from responsibilities. > See above. We expect that the risk triage will allow the cost of violation to pass to the customer. > > > 2. There is no indication about the legacy domain names that > utilize P/P Services before the provider been accredited. Will it be a > similar situation as Grandfathered domains? > Some of us have argued that there should be a Privacy/Proxy Data Accuracy Reminder policy along the line of the WHOIS Data reminder. It was not accepted. But there is no reason the P/P provider cannot be obliged and bound to it in terms of the accreditation for renewals. > > > 3. Like the example I gave during the 2nd F2F meeting, if there is > not enough regulation and overseeing in place, P/P service is very likely > to be abused. To be clear, I elaborated the example in a word document (see > attached). Do we really need this kind of fake prosperity of domain > industry? > > > > A response from this subgroup is much appreciated. > > > Best, -Carlton > Thanks, > > Lili > > > > > ************************************************************ > *************************************** > This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject > of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice > purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The > information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party > without the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is > necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to > be used. All practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure > that information is protected against unauthorised access or processing. > INTERPOL reserves the right to enquire about the use of the information > provided. > If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received > this message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it, > make any use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and > delete the message from any computer. > ************************************************************ > ************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list > RDS-WHOIS2-RT(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt > >

1 0

Privacy Proxy subgroup draft report
by Susan Kawaguchi May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Hello All, I made a few edits to the report. Please review and let's see if we can get this draft submitted tomorrow. Susan

2 1

Reminder: deadline to submit subgroup report & open action item
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez May 23, 2018

May 23, 2018

Dear WHOIS1 Rec #10: Privacy/Proxy Services subgroup members, We would like to kindly remind you that tomorrow – 24 May 23:59 UTC is the agreed deadline to submit your subgroup report to the review team. The latest version of your report is saved here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71604717/SK%20input%20Subg… . Your dedicated subgroup wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ZlEB . Please find below the open action item for your subgroup: * Susan to liaise with Volker and progress on the subgroup draft report. Similar to the preparatory work for the draft report you presented in Brussels, your ICANN support team is available to help you reflect Brussels discussions into your final report. If you need ICANN org to provide suggested language, please reach out to us at rds-whois2-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:rds-whois2-staff@icann.org>. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

3 3

Action Needed: Rec #10: Privacy-Proxy Services: Face-to-Face Meeting #2 Open Action Items
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez May 2, 2018

May 2, 2018

Dear Rec #10: Privacy-Proxy Services Subgroup members, Please find below your subgroup open action items identified during the face-to-face meeting #2 in Brussels: Volker to clarify following issues for RT: • Issue #1: Current funding proposals for accreditation program create concerns of ICANN failing the goal of onboarding all providers of such services due to inflation of costs. ICANN Org staff seems to be unable to justify proposed accreditation fees, which may endanger the entire program. • Issue #2: Impact of GDPR data redaction requirements on privacy services are yet unknown, but significant impact is expected as personal data becomes hidden by default without Attached to this email, you will find agreements and actions items confirmed in Brussels. Meeting archives can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/kA_8B. Dedicated subgroup page including background documents, actions items, decisions reached: https://community.icann.org/x/7ZlEB. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

2 1