[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 11 March 2014 at 1500 UTC

Nathalie Peregrine nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
Tue Mar 11 19:19:28 UTC 2014


Dear All,


Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services
Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 11 March 2014 at
15:00 UTC at:




On page: 



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/



Luc Seufer - RrSG

Volker Greimann - RrSG

Graeme Bunton - RrSG

Tim Ruiz - RrSG

Sarah Wyld - RrSG

David Heasley - IPC

James Bladel - RrSG

Steve Metalitz - IPC

Kathy Kleiman - RySGgr

Darcy Southwell - RrSG

Don Blumenthal - RySG

Libby Baney - BC

Phil Marano - IPC

Jim Bikoff - IPC

Griffin Barnett - IPC

Valeriya Sherman - IPC

Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC

Jennifer Standiford - RrSG

Carlton Samuels - ALAC

Amr Elsadr - NCUC

Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG

Osvalod Novoa - ISPCP

Don Moody -IPC

Todd Williams - IPC



Michele Neylon - RrSG

Roy Balleste - NCUC

Holly Raiche - ALAC

Susan Prosser - RrSG

Kristina Rosette - IPC

Stephanie Perrin- NCSG

Joe Catapano - staff


ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Margie Milam

Amy Bivins

Mike Zupke

Marika Konings 

Nathalie Peregrine


** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **


Mailing list archives:



Wiki page:

 <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg


Thank you.

Kind regards,

Nathalie Peregrine





Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 11 March 2014:


  Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 11 March 2014

  Valeriya Sherman:Jim Bikoff and Griffin Barnett are also on the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Thanks , noted!

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Marie-Laure Lemineur has joined the cal

  Marika Konings:For further details about the meeting in Singapore, please
see http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-ppsa

  Luc Seufer:Ladies, Gentlemen

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Graeme Bunton is also on the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Libby Baney is on the audio bridge

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Tim Ruiz has joined the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Jennifer Standiford ha sjust joined

  Tim Ruiz:What time?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:15;00 UTC

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the call

  Carlton Samuels:Good morning all

  Mary Wong:For North America, it means we stay on the same time as this

  Volker Greimann:Turn on magnification of 1000%

  Don Blumenthal:And connect to a 60 inch TV

  Kathy Kleiman:Can someone please post the link to the file?

  Mary Wong:Kathy:
630000&api=v2> &modificationDate=1394533630000&api=v2

  Kathy Kleiman:Tx Mary!

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the call

  Kathy Kleiman:Alas, we can't see anything :-(

  Kathy Kleiman:But it looks like a good sheet to study - and tx for pulling
together this data!

  Valeriya Sherman:Does anybody know how many P/P providers are there
currently? And how many of those are affiliated with registrars, in the
sense of being subsidiaries?

  Valeriya Sherman:Val;)

  Tim Ruiz:Do lawyers count?

  Mary Wong:We don't have any comprehensive survey or means of objectively
ascertaining the number out there.

  Don Blumenthal:Tim - count for what? :)

  Tim Ruiz:Count as privacy services. A lot of them register names for
clients in their or their firms name.

  Mary Wong:Note also that when we use the word "Affiliated" in the context
of the 2013 RAA, it's a specifically defined term. That's not always the
case in other contexts, when using "affiliated" without the capital A.

  Tim Ruiz:Yeah, missed the smiley face. :-)

  Bladel:Mary: What is the distinction?

  Mary Wong:@James, I believe that "Affiliated" in this instance refers to
entities that have a controlling relationship one to the other. That's more
specific and narrow than "affiliated" which can be far broader and does not
have a specific legal or technical meaning.

  Bladel:Ok, thanks.

  Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:apologies, my internet connection failed. 

  Mary Wong:The Nominet input to the Whois Review Team was posted to the WG
wiki, under the documents for 4 March.

  Luc Seufer:@Marie-Laure, I have heard ICANN is not willing to pay Comcast
an extra fee for all the bandwidth we are using ;-)

  Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC::)

  Tim Ruiz:We could require something similar passed through to the p/p

  Volker Greimann:@Steve: For non-affiliated services, we send it to the
registrant of record, i.e. the service provider

  Carlton Samuels:@Steve: In your scenario that verification is 2 layers

  Volker Greimann:sorry, there is another telco in the room, so I cannot
talk :-(

  Bladel:But Volker, if you become aware that they are a privacy service
(and not accredited) you'll have to take action against those names.

  Mary Wong:@Volker, @Steve - that would be the case for proxy registrations
(as defined by ICANN), true?

  Volker Greimann:@james: not currently

  Volker Greimann:as there is no such program

  Carlton Samuels:I think it is burdensome. If the liability rests with the
provider  then verification is the responsibility of the provider.

  steve metalitz:apologies, I will have to drop off the call momentarily
since another call time was changed due to daylight savings time 

  Bladel:Once the program launches, the "hooks" are already in the RAA.

  Volker Greimann:I was referring to the current status


  Volker Greimann:the new accreditation would have to oblige non-affiliated
providers to perform identical verfication and validation

  Volker Greimann:if you need that for the underlying data

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Todd Williams has joined the call

  Graeme Bunton:i think it's old

  Carlton Samuels:@Volker: Yes. And that is the case that should be
considered. As I've said before make the requirement one for  '[re]verified
contact information'  and be done.  This applies regardless of the
provenance of the service; Affiliated or non-Affiliated provider. No need to
be more prescriptive as policy.

  Amr Elsadr:Verification and validation by non-affiliated service providers
doesn't seem unreasonable. I suppose some registrants may choose to have
different email addresses associated with their registrar and P/P provider
(for example). I'm still not sure why any of this may be grounds for
reverification. That isn't a requirement in the 2013 RAA, is it?

  Carlton Samuels:Implementation design and the details associated must
remain with the implementation team

  Marika Konings:It is the registrar, not ICANN that sends the reminder, I

  Volker Greimann:@Kathy: We send out the data we have on file. So for our
own privacy service, it is the underlying data, for unaffiliated services,
it is the services data

  Luc Seufer:@Marika fortunately!

  Marika Konings::-)

  Graeme Bunton:Our approach matches what Volker is saying

  Volker Greimann:whether or not that is forwarded or not depends on how the
service is set up

 Marika Konings:Would it be an option to require the P/P service to forward
the Whois data reminder to the P/P customer and if that bounces,
reverification is required?

  Mary Wong:@Amr, what is the "this" you're referring to?

  Amr Elsadr:I thought we were talking about the need for reverification of
contact data in the whois. It seems we've moved on.

  Darcy Southwell:I suggest that any re-verification requirement be
consistent with the Whois Accuracy Program Specification.  Otherwise,
registrars who also provide privacy/proxy services will have two different
standards for re-verification.

  Graeme Bunton:That's an interesting point James

  Volker Greimann:Marika: I think that is not helpful, as we can only
include data we have in our reminders

  Kathy Kleiman:Good point, James

  Carlton Samuels:@Volker: Precisely.  This is why verification requirement
rests with the p/p provider!

  Darcy Southwell:@Marika - If this is requirement, are you suggesting that
if a P/P service doesn't already collect and follow up on bounces that it
would have to build that functionality to continue as a P/P service?

  Kathy Kleiman:Do the customers have a way to check their data in a p/p
service -- the ones I have seen do...

  Volker Greimann:Marika: I would not tie it to the registrar reminders,
sinde some may be passed through automatically, while with other services it
may not, depending how the provider handles the mail address in the contact
deposited with the registrar

  Kathy Kleiman:but I don't know across the board?

  Luc Seufer:Silly question, but when the program will be established, how
does a registrar know that a domain holder is using the services of a proxy
service from a third party? (if the details are not Domain Proxy Inc. or
something obvious)As registrar we will be bound to only allow registrants to
use accredited  p/p/  providers services, but what qualifies the service of
an entity as a p/p/ service?

  Volker Greimann:Luc: Pragmatically. Positive knowledge only

  Luc Seufer:so in other words, never.

  Tim Ruiz:Luc, that's an implementation detail ;-)

  Volker Greimann:My take: They would be obliged to agree to verify and
validate in their accreditation agreement with ICANN. Compliance and
Noncompliance is a job for ICANN compliance then

  Luc Seufer:Okay so unless a Compliance rep. tells you that company XYZ is
providing p/p services, you can't tell.

  Mary Wong:@Volker, is it your assumption that the P/P accreditation will
be based on a binding contract between ICANN and the P/P service (similar to
registrar accreditation)?

  Bladel:But if a Registrar becomes aware that an unaccredited P/P is
registering domains through them, then the registrar (per the RAA) should
take action against htose names.

  Libby Baney:@Don - before moving on, could we summarize the "closure" /
concensus on where we landed on the prior issue? Thanks!

  Tim Ruiz:Another question will be what are registrars required to do if
they discover registrations that are by non-accredited p/p service or is
otherwise proxied?

  Tim Ruiz:@James, on the same wave length :-)

  Luc Seufer:but what's a non-accredited P/P? Any registrant without an
ICANN P/P accreditation?

  Tim Ruiz:@James, or as I like to say, great minds think like I do.

  Libby Baney:Yeah, thanks

  Libby Baney:Just wanted to make sure I knew where we "were"

  Libby Baney::)

  Volker Greimann:of course, if we find out anyone operates any form of
privacy services for third parties, such as lawyers, etc, we may be required
to deactivate those domains if the firms are not accredited...

  Graeme Bunton:That's my understanding too, Volker

  Volker Greimann:Mary: In my book, that is what Accreditation means,, so

  Luc Seufer:For example a law firm registering itself as registrant of a
domain name they have recovered via UDRP for example, do they need to be
accredited by ICANN to do so? Wouldn't we as registrar be in breach of the
2013 RAA by allowing such law firm to do so? 

  Mary Wong:Thanks, Volker - I thought so but thought also it would be
useful to clarify. Possibly other WG memebrs share the same view but I'm not
sure this is a question the WG has discussed.

  Kathy Kleiman:I'm disconnected

  Volker Greimann:I am certainly not assuming that each registrar becomes an
accreditation body, accrediting privacy services. This has to be centralized
and at the centre, there is ICANN

  Kathy Kleiman:But yes, I thnk we need to look at the rights of registrants
and these documents Marika mentioned

  Tim Ruiz:@Luc & Volker, laws regarding client/attorney privalege may come
into play?

  Darcy Southwell:Luc's question is a good one - is the law firm acting as a
P/P service or instead licenscing the domain to its clients?

  Volker Greimann:well, too bad, Tim ;-) Privacy service is privacy service

  Volker Greimann:Darcy: if it looks like a duck...

  Kathy Kleiman:I'll raise the points next meeting... 

  Tim Ruiz:@Luc, I don't disagree in theory, but we do need policy that's

  Volker Greimann:the nature of the internal contractual relationship
between the parties cannot matter

  Darcy Southwell:Duck, yes.  But I suspect some law firms would disagree.

  Volker Greimann:either the registrant of record is the beneficial owner,
or he is not. In the latter case, the registrant of record is providing some
form of privacy or proxy service and has to undergo the accreditation

  Luc Seufer:@Tim, another conflict between ICANN policies and local laws:
this time count me out!

  Volker Greimann:with all the obligations that entails

  Tim Ruiz:@Luc, the proble of course if there is an exception is that most
p/p services will ultimately set up to fall into that exception.

  Kathy Kleiman:Tx All !

  Graeme Bunton:thanks all

  Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thanks. Bye bye

  Libby Baney:Thanks!

  Tim Ruiz:Thanks Don and all!

  Osvaldo Novoa:By and thank you

  Luc Seufer:Bye



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140311/9b5ed004/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140311/9b5ed004/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list