[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template Category B -question 2

Mon Apr 14 16:06:00 UTC 2014

Kathy, that is what the preliminary recommendation currently says so your
proposed footnote appears to be a duplication? The footnote that was added
per the suggestion of Steve just clarifies that the support for this
preliminary recommendation (to validate and verify in a manner consistent
with the 2013 RAA requirements) may need to be revisited following the
outcome of the deliberations on the other charter questions.

Best regards,

Marika

From:  Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date:  Monday 14 April 2014 18:00
To:  "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>, Marika
Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - revised template
Category B -question 2

Hi Marika,
In light of Volker and Stephanie's point, perhaps a similar footnote would
be valuable in Cat B- ques 2 reflecting that:
[footnote] Others across several SG groups voiced support (over several
discussions) for a standard in which verification and validation of p/p
registration would not exceed that required of current domain name
registrations under the 2013 RAA -- for many reasons, including those listed
above.  

Best,
Kathy

> I too unfortunately missed that call, and as I indicated previously, I don't
> find this fair.  It presumes guilt on the part of proxy customers.
> Stephanie P
> On 2014-04-14, at 9:52 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
> 
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> as I missed that call, was that number of members in any way qualified or
>> multi-stakeholder or was it just a voice from a certain part of the
>> community. If so, any comment to that effect (if it were to be included)
>> should also include the origin of that opinion.
>> 
>> Volker
>> 
>> Am 14.04.2014 15:45, schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
>>> 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>
>>> [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
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-
>>> pdp-wg
>> 
>> -- 
>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>> 
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> 
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>> 
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at 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 at 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-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pd
> p-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140414/09e55fbd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20140414/09e55fbd/smime-0001.p7s>