[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 1400 UTC
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Tue Jul 22 18:49:47 UTC 2014
Dear All,
Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 14:00 UTC at:
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140722-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140722-en.mp3
On page:
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Justin Macy – BC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Darcy Southwell - RrSG
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Val Sherman – IPC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Susan Kawaguchi – BC
Kathy Kleiman – NCUC
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
David Heasley – IPC
Alex Deacon - IPC
Jim Bikoff – IPC
Kristina Rosette – IPC
Paul McGrady – IPC
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Todd Williams – IPC
Tim Ruiz - RrSG
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG
Roy Balleste – NCUC
Frank Michlick – Individual
Phil Marano-IPC
Luc Seufer- RrSG
Volker Greimann-RrSG
Maria Farrell-NCUC
Tobias Sattler-RrSG
Sean McInerney - SOI
Apologies:
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Don Blumenthal – RySG
James Bladel – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Christian Dawson – ISPCP
Don Moody - IPC
ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Mary Wong
Terri Agnew
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives:
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/
Wiki page:
<https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 22 July 2014:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 22 July 2014
Carlton Samuels:Howdy do everybody
Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton
Chris Pelling:afternoon all
Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Hello!
Tim Ruiz:Hello all!
Graeme Bunton:Good morning all, if you missed it, Don is travelling today and I'll be subbing in as chair today
Paul McGrady:Good morning all. I'm having some trouble with hearing the audio, so I may need to switch to dial in rather than Adobe.
Terri Agnew:David Heasley and Jim Bikoff have joined
Kathy:Hi All!
Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon and Kristina Rosette have joined
Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined
Mary Wong:Steve's point has now been added to the E-1 template (see screen), but we have not had the chance to add Kathy's suggestion.
Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined
Carlton Samuels:FWIW, re Kathy's suggestion: +1. The ALAC's position is that all terms of the RAA remain in force
Tim Ruiz:What is bonified?
Luc Seufer:4 to 5 years for a Bordeaux
Stephanie Perrin:that was my question as well, we never really solved the problem of alleged bad behaviour
Terri Agnew:Volker Greimann has joined
Chris Pelling:my understanding was no one actually said they would not ?
Chris Pelling:that and they cant read michele
Terri Agnew:Maria Farrell has joined
Luc Seufer:FWIW the French Registry, who is providing a de facto privacy service to every individuals registering a .fr domain name is using the form+captcha available here for their relay http://www.afnic.fr/en/dispute-resolution/tools-and-procedures/reach-a-domain-name-administative-contact/
Maria Farrell:I have seen a Carlow policeman. Agree with Michele - you don't want one turning up on your doorstep!!
Carlton Samuels:+1 to Kathy
Chris Pelling:thanks Luc
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes, so leave the decision to the P/P provider and make that a compliance matter
Carlton Samuels:@Graeme: James's explanation is compelling to me
Tim Ruiz:As long as we also recognize that the P/P provider is not the begin and end all of the email chain. Email providers themselves may filter beyond the P/P provider's control, as well as in the chain after, as wwith
Tim Ruiz:...as with the users software.
Alex Deacon:can you hear me?
Alex Deacon:ok I need to dial in - just a sec. apologies
Michele Neylon:the sound of silence ..
Terri Agnew:Alex, your mic isn't active
kristina rosette:Graeme, can you walk through how you'd know in 15 days if it failed. I'm not clear on that. (I know the RAA provision, but not sure how it would apply here.)
kristina rosette:sorry. need to be on mute b/c of office construction
kristina rosette:So, the idea is that the proxy provider would report to the registrar, who would then suspend?
Terri Agnew:Alex has activated his mic
Tim Ruiz:Are we talking about only the emails that are relayed?
Michele Neylon:AFK
Chris Pelling:Steve, should the email address work, and your email is passed on but you get no response, then what ? are you going to continue emailing or ? Not trying to create a storm, trying to understand
Chris Pelling:@Steve, but the PP wont reply to you or is that what you are trying to request ?
Val Sherman:+1 Steve
Kathy:What about sales request? If someone is trying to buy a domain name, is that the type of email I (as a customer) should be able to "opt-out" of?
Graeme Bunton:You're right Kristina that I was mostly thinking about that in the context of a registrar afiliated service
Tim Ruiz:Not all email systems send notice on bounces or non-deliverables, as far as I know. So there is really no way to enforece or check this anyway, as far as I know.
Kathy:I hate to say it, but it sounds like a lot of work to check bounces...
kristina rosette:@Graeme: That's the gap I'm thinking about - when there proxy/privacy provider is not affiliated with the registrar.
Justin Macy:Correect me if I'm wrong, I don't think Steve is talking about spam. An email that lands in a spam folder is still technically delivered. Even though it may be ignored.
Tim Ruiz:Again, how would this be verified or enforced?
Volker Greimann:parody?
steve metalitz:@Volker --parity
Marika Konings:Could P/P terms of service require/recommend that P/P provider email address is whitelisted to ensure that communications are received (and it is the responsibility of the registrant to do so)?
Chris Pelling:did my hand raise ?
Tobias Sattler:Sorry for being late.
Graeme Bunton:it did, chris
Frank Michlick:Sorry, I have to drop off the meeting.
Michele Neylon:Marika - how can we check that?
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: The question is what happens beyond the P/P provider's gate. There are several reasons for 'communications failure'. If we make the rule that a provider would have a duty to relay, then response is still required of the P/P as middleman. the responsibility to complete the communications chain
Terri Agnew:Tobias Sattler has joined
Tim Ruiz:Perhaps it is a best practice instead?
Michele Neylon:+1 with Volker's comment
Michele Neylon:some MTAs give back really useless errors
Marika Konings:@Michele - you cannot check, but you make clear that it is the responsibility of the registrant to ensure that communications from P/P can be delivered.
Michele Neylon:Marika - ok, but how does that help anyone? :)
Marika Konings:hopefully it helps messages actually being delivered instead of getting stuck in the spam filter ;-)
Chris Pelling:ok, well ours last 24 hours
Mary Wong:Although not a 100% fail-safe guarantee, is this one place where the "knowingly" phrase from the RAA might come in useful? ie if the P/P providre knows a delivery failed, there's then an obligation to notify teh requestor?
kristina rosette:US Postal Service provides delivery confirmation.
Justin Macy:US Postal service will also return to sender if undeliverable
Michele Neylon:Kristina - assuming they ever deliver :)
Carlton Samuels:Why would one ever assume 'communications failure'? I suspect elapsed time from original message? If you get no response then you check? The P/P provider is duty-bound to relay the message . The message may have to be delivered by alternate means.
Tim Ruiz:@Kristina, but at a cost to the sender, right?
Chris Pelling:@Steve, but what if they simply dont respond
Tim Ruiz:Is ther then any reason why P/P provider could not charge a reasonable fee for the bounce back or non-deliverable service?
Mary Wong:@Michele, that was my suggestion for the group to consider - "knowingly"
Kathy:@Mary: I think we are imposing a huge new obligation on p/p providers
Tim Ruiz:Charging would cover P/P costs and discourage abuse of the complaint system. Again, only charging for getting a return confirmation of sorts.
Chris Pelling:@alex not for international I would wager
Chris Pelling:ie Royal Mail in the uk will not send a letter back to the usa at their cost
Kathy:@Steve's idea: that the p/p provider user commercially reasonable means to delivery the email -- that makes sense to me.
Michele Neylon:I like "commercially reasonable" and that kind of language
Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Are we going to require that postal mail be relayed? Right now many P/P providers relay email but not letter mail...
Darcy Southwell:I agree with Kathy and Michele about "commercially reasonable" obligations to deliver to the registrant what is submitted to to the p/p provider.
Chris Pelling:ok - Ill put out there now, we charge the sender for relaying postal mail as it introduces a "man cost"
Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Here we are, getting into the weeds of the protocols, and the meaning the rules of communications. The rule is that messages must be relayed. Failure in this state means 'we didn't hear from somebody in a specified time'. Then, since you have the duty to communicate. The message may take several channels. Given the responsibility to deliver a message, you go for alternate communication channel. Now, what might be reasonable as a channel is a sliding scale, depending on effort and cost. But there will be a consequence for non-communication.
Tim Ruiz:Commercially Reasonable would be applied to the parties of the agreement. So, yes, it may be different for different parties.
steve metalitz:+1 Mary, these are two separate points -- delivery and known failure
Mary Wong:OK thanks!
Marika Konings:Please note that some of the P/P providers sampled do seem to relay postal mail (in certain cases they would scan it and send it via email)
Chris Pelling:@Marika, yes we do for a charge though
Carlton Samuels:The first indication of a likely delivery failure is "no response in the x days set'
Tim Ruiz:If it has value to the requestor, the a cost recovery fee seems reasonable.
Alex Deacon:@Carlton - failure in this case means that the P/P received a failure message when attempting to communicate with their customer. No resposne may not be a failure.
Chris Pelling:@steve, email is free, written comms isnt
Chris Pelling:Foe example, the charge we make is for time taken in scanning the document, and then confirming delivery back to the sender
Chris Pelling:so that have a signed letter from us of delivery
Luc Seufer:the secret business partnership did not lasted too long
Carlton Samuels:@Alex. Understood. But I think we're focusing on details. Our interest is a response to a message. The details of delivery mode is less important IMHO. Let the P/P and their customer decide
Terri Agnew:Sean McInerney has joined audio
Graeme Bunton:You're a bit loud Volker
Kathy:+1 Carlton
Michele Neylon:at least we can hear him
Chris Pelling:Graeme I notice you never said that to Michele :p
Chris Pelling:hehe
Justin Macy:I tend to think we are talking about two seperate services, a bounce back being forwarded and a certified letter of delivery. I tend to think the bounce back cost should be paid by the customer. I'm not so sure on the certified delivery., I would need to think about it more.
steve metalitz:David's suggestion was forwardingmail when electronic communications had failed
Volker Greimann:It does actually!
Kathy:@Steve, tx for the clarification -- useful to know
Chris Pelling:or they simply dont wish to respond for example
Chris Pelling:so you want to hear from me again ?
Chris Pelling:I dont mind answering that
Michele Neylon:lack of response doesn't equate with lack of functionality
Mary Wong:Go ahead, Chris
Michele Neylon:I get a LOT of snail mail that I bin
Luc Seufer:I think you meant "recycle" Michele
Kathy:Tx you, Chris!
Chris Pelling:sorry vlubt and to the point
Chris Pelling:blunt *
Tim Ruiz:I think a best practice is the way to go with this. Making it a requirement would only create yet another unverifiable, unenforceable policy
Michele Neylon:I have a very large recycling bin by my desk
Chris Pelling:but they dont confirm back to you
Chris Pelling:that was @Steve
Luc Seufer:here you go! blacknight.com even our complaint management system is green
Chris Pelling:hehe Luc
Chris Pelling:absolutely correct Michele
Kathy:+1 to Michele: it's true in the real world,and it's true in the electronic world: there is no obligation to respond to a request to purchase, to a mere allegation of concern, etc
Carlton Samuels:I do not believe we should be prescriptive about how a message is sent. The rule must outline a duty to respond and in a certain time. After that time has elapsed make the reaction to non-response sure and effective
Carlton Samuels:@Michele: I agree, no duty to respond but there must be a clear outcome from non-response.
Mary Wong:We'll send around an updated E-1 template in the next day or so.
Chris Pelling:Thanks you all :)
Kathy:Great moderating, Graeme, much appreciated!
Paul McGrady:Thanks!
Darcy Southwell:Thank you!
Val Sherman:thanks!
Maria Farrell:Thanks graeme
Luc Seufer:thx
Tim Ruiz:Bye
Carlton Samuels:Thanks all. An interesting discussion
Maria Farrell:+1 kathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140722/9136dfd1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140722/9136dfd1/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list