[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!
Kathy
:
> 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