[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated template for Category B - question 3

[Mary Wong]

The WG wiki has been updated accordingly; you will find the
previously-uploaded version of the template for Category B Question 2 (for
which there is lively ongoing discussion on the list) as of 17 March; and a
further updated version for Category B Question 3 (updated with the new NCSG
submissions as stated in Kathy's email):
https://community.icann.org/x/oR3RAg

We hope they will be useful for your reference and the call later today.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

* One World. One Internet. *

From:  Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date:  Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:00 PM
To:  Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - template Category B -
question 3

> Please find attached the updated template with the additional NCSG comments
> incorporated.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Date: Tuesday 18 March 2014 04:39
> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - template Category B -
> question 3
> 
> Hi All,
> In answering our newest question, Category B-question 3, I would ask that an
> expansion of the NCSG comments be included in the summary of comments
> received. NCSG has now commented extensively on rights a domain name
> registrant should have when using a proxy/privacy service -- and our focus has
> been on two aspects (although there are more to discuss), namely: a) access to
> proxy/privacy services, and b) due process in the limitation and/or
> termination of these services.
> 
> Access: NCSG submits that in the gTLD system, p/p is a needed and legitimate
> service for noncommercial organizations, including public interest groups,
> religious groups, educational organization, charities, and hobby groups, as
> well as individuals, entrepreneurs and small businesses. We would like to see
> that right of access protected and ensured.
> 
> Due Process: NCSG submits that the p/p customer should be assured of the right
> to engage in a dialogue with the proxy/privacy service provider before contact
> data is released or published (when legally allowed), and given the
> opportunity to show if the request for contact data is intended to to harm,
> harass, damage competition or diminish Freedom of Expression or Assembly
> rights. Further, the NSCG comments discussed (as reflected in the current
> template) the importance of allowing Registrars to follow their national laws
> and practices and incorporate the privacy, data protection and due process of
> ther laws into their p/p contracts with customers.  What is illegal in one
> country is not illegal in another country -- be it speech activities,
> religious activities, political activities or even comparative advertising (in
> which a particular product or service specifically mentions a competitor by
> name for the express purpose of showing why the competitor is inferior to the
> product naming it). These robust differences must be taking into account when
> drafting a general set of accreditation principles for rights and
> responsibilities of Registrants.
> 
> We respectfully submit there are many rights, as well as responsibilities, to
> consider in this question tomorrow... and look forward to the discussion.
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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-p
>> dp-wg
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140318/d14263b6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140318/d14263b6/smime.p7s>