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

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Mar 18 13:39:06 UTC 2014

Tx Mary!
> 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 
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:00 PM
> To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>     Date: Tuesday 18 March 2014 04:39
>     To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>     <mailto: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.org  <mailto: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.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140318/53437d0c/attachment.html>

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