[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template Category B - question 3

Mon Apr 14 13:57:02 UTC 2014

Hi Steve,

Apologies for not calling it out in the document  I've added it now as a
footnote to the recommendation (see attached) also noting that the
preliminary recommendation will be revisited in due time. Does this address
your concern? 

Per Volker's comment, I've highlighted that this view was shared by 'some'
WG members, however, until we get to finalising the recommendations and
specifying the level of support (or non-support) it is probably not
necessary yet to specify who those 'some' are?

Best regards,

Marika

From:  <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com>
Date:  Monday 14 April 2014 15:45
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>,
"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template
Category B - question 3

Hi Marika, 

I believe that at the beginning of the April 8 call there was discussion
about including in the preliminary conclusion on Question B-2 the view of a
number of members of the WG that the minimum verification or validation
standards for accredited services would need to exceed those applicable to
non-proxy registrations, but that this view could be affected by the outcome
of discussions regarding relay and reveal requirements (e.g., re the speed
of reveal).  It does not appear that the template for question B-2 has been
supplemented to reflect this discussion.  Could staff please do so?  Thanks.

Steve Metalitz

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:45 PM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template Category B -
question 3

Dear All,

Following our call on Tuesday, please find attached the updated template for
Cat B  Q 3 which aims to capture the main points of discussion as well as a
proposed preliminary conclusion based on the deliberations to date ('The WG
recommends that any rights, responsibilities and obligations for registrants
as well as privacy/proxy providers would need to be clearly communicated in
the registration agreement, including any specific requirements applying to
transfers and renewals. However, further details as to what minimum
requirements for such rights, responsibilities and obligations may be will
need to be further discussed by the WG following its review of other charter
questions'). If I've missed anything or you have any proposed edits, feel
free to share your suggestions with the mailing list.

As noted during the call, further input and discussion will be required in
relation to the second part of the charter question: clarify how transfers,
renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply? Below you will find our initial
attempt to identify some of the questions that may need to be addressed in
this regard. We hope that WG members, and especially registrars, will be
able to add to this list and/or provide some initial thoughts and
suggestions. We'll kick off the meeting next week with a short introduction
to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), but in the meantime you may
already want to review this presentation that was provided by James Bladel
for one of the IRTP WGs (Powerpoint
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-irtp-c-training-29nov11-en.p
df> , Transcript 
<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-irtp-c-training-29nov11-en.pdf>
and MP3-Recording 
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-c-training-20111129-en.mp3> ).

Best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: Monday 17 March 2014 12:40
To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - template Category B -
question 3

Dear All,

In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, please find attached the proposed
template for Category B  question 3 (What rights and responsibilities
should domain name registrants that use privacy/proxy services have? What
obligations should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers have in
managing these rights and responsibilities? Clarify how transfers, renewals,
and PEDNR policies should apply.) If there is any additional information
that should be added to the background section, please let me know.

In relation to transfers, renewals and PEDNR policies, we've started to
develop a list of questions that the WG may need to consider in relation to
these policies. If there are any additional questions that should be
included, please feel free to suggest. We are hoping that some of the
registrar members will be able to shed a light on how these issues are
currently handled and whether or not these need to be factored into the WG
recommendations.
* Per the ERRP, 'registrars must notify the registered name holder of the
expiration at least two times'. Should there be a requirement for the P/P
provider to pass these notices on to the P/P customer?
* Per the ERRP, 'if a registration is not renewed by the RAE or deleted by
the registrar, within five days after the expiration of the registration,
the registrar must transmit at least one additional expiration notice to the
RAE that includes instructions for renewing the registration'. Should there
be a requirement for the P/P provider to pass these notices on to the P/P
customer?
* Per the ERRP, 'beginning at the time of expiration and through the DNS
resolution interruption period described in paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, the
RAE must be permitted by the registrar to renew the expired registration'.
What if the underlying customer wants to renew the registration? Idem for
restoration during the Redemption Grace Period.
* In relation to the IRTP, should there be any restrictions concerning
transfers of P/P registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and conditions
require the P/P services to be removed during the transfer process).
Depending on the response to this question, all communications in the IRTP
currently go via the transfer contact (Registered Name Holder / Admin
Contact). Should there be any requirements for this information to also be
communicated to the P/P customer? What happens if there is a disagreement
relating to the transfer between the P/P provider and the P/P customer?
Best regards,

Marika

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140414/8bff25a0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PPSAI - Cat B - Question 2 - Updated 14 April 2014.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 147968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140414/8bff25a0/PPSAI-CatB-Question2-Updated14April2014-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140414/8bff25a0/smime-0001.p7s>