[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please select TWO topics: 3 and 1

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Fri Oct 3 20:20:27 UTC 2014

Hi All,
I just thought I would expand a bit on my earlier email. The intermix of 
reveal and relay seems to be an art. Some p/p providers rely more on 
Reveal, others on Relay. Basically it seems to be a balance between the 
two services, but the balance seems to be a bit different for each P/P.

But the key seems to be Reveal. Until we nail that down (and I do not 
yet see a common baseline other than case by case analysis, which I 
support), I don't think we can nail down Relay (which appears to play a 
greater role in P/P Providers with case by case analysis for Reveal).

If I understand things correctly (and I may not :-)), then I think we 
should wrap up Reveal, sit back, evaluate and then finish up Relay. I 
don't think we can do them both at once in LA or that we should finish 
Relay first.

Hence, my vote for Reveal then Transfer/Renewal -- #3 and #1. More than 
enough for one day?

> Hi All,
> Sorry for the delay, but I have given this some thought. I agree we 
> need to continue our work on #3, Reveal, and I completely agree with 
> James that #1 is key. Transfers and renewals while keeping privacy 
> protection is a key part of our work and something in which we (this 
> WG) can make a difference and set a new baseline.
> So I would recommend, #3 and #1 (in that order) -- and circling back 
> to #2 Relay later when we have nailed down Reveal. The reason why is 
> that I can think Relay will change depending on what we decide for 
> Reveal...
> Best,
> Kathy
> :
>> Same here, but folks we really have to take a comprehensive look at 
>> topic #1 at some point.  While IP protection mechanisms may be a hot 
>> topic at ICANN, the impact on transfers & renewals will be the 
>> yardstick used by the "real world" to measure the success---or 
>> failure--of our work.
>> J.
>> From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com 
>> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>>
>> Date: Monday, September 29, 2014 at 23:39
>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, 
>> PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please select TWO topics from this 
>> list for the WG F2F session on 10 Oct 2014
>> Thank you, Mary.  I vote for #2 and #3.
>> Best regards,
>> Darcy Southwell
>> Description: Description: compass-high-res 2
>> *Darcy Southwell*
>> Director, Registrar Compliance | *The Endurance International Group*
>> Mobile +1.503.453.7305 | darcy.southwell at endurance.com 
>> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com> | Skype: darcy.enyeart
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>> Date: Monday, September 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM
>> To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please select TWO topics from this list 
>> for the WG F2F session on 10 Oct 2014
>> Dear WG members,
>> After consultation with the WG chairs, we would like to propose the 
>> following as topics that we thought would benefit from further and 
>> more in-depth discussion during the WG's upcoming face-to-face 
>> facilitated session in Los Angeles on Friday 10 October.
>> Please reply (off list to me is fine) with your /*top two*/ choices 
>> of preferred topics -- note that the last option also allows anyone 
>> to add a topic (based on the group's Preliminary Conclusions and 
>> templates to date, and following the Charter questions and agreed 
>> categories A-G) that is not specifically listed below. Staff will 
>> compile a list of the top three topics selected by the most WG 
>> members for discussion at the 10 October session.
>>     *1. What rights/responsibilities and obligations should be
>>     communicated by P/P service providers to customers/registrants
>>     with regard to transfers and renewals of domain name
>>     registrations? *(from Category B Question 3 -- see
>>     attached report from the Transfers Issues sub-team (James and
>>     Kathy); the WG Template including Preliminary Conclusions can be
>>     reviewed at https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg)
>>     *2. Further discussion on Category E -- Relay* (see WG Templates
>>     including Preliminary Conclusions at
>>     https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg; specifically, the three
>>     remaining "open questions", i.e.:
>>         (a) Should providers be required to forward hard copy notices
>>         to registrants/customers, on request, in cases where
>>         electronic communications are known to be undeliverable?
>>         (b) Should providers be permitted to charge a reasonable fee
>>         to forward non-electronic communications that incur a cost to
>>         do so (this could include monetary costs such as charges for
>>         registered mail and/or other resource costs such as man-hours
>>         to review/strip out personal information from a communication)?
>>         (c) If a provider chooses not to forward an allegation of
>>         illegal activity, should there be an obligation for a
>>         provider to inform a requestor when the provider does not
>>         forward its request?
>>     *3. Further discussion on Category F*-- Reveal (specific
>>     questions TBD depending on extent of WG discussions between now
>>     and 10 October; see draft WG Templates and current Preliminary
>>     Conclusions at
>>     https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg)
>>     *4. What aspects of the current temporary P/P specification in
>>     the 2013 RAA should be retained and/or expanded for the
>>     accreditation program? What is not in the current specification
>>     but should be?* (See
>>     https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy)
>>     *5. What are the business practices that a P/P provider should
>>     disclose to potential and actual customers, as part of the
>>     accreditation program?*
>>     *6. Any other suggestions not already on this list?*
>> We attach also a suggested proposed agenda for the day -- including 
>> proposed "ground rules" that have been found to have been extremely 
>> useful for focusing discussions -- and a document on Collaborative 
>> Reminders prepared by our professional facilitators that similarly 
>> are intended to facilitate useful constructive discussion and 
>> outcomes based on the objectives of our session.
>> On behalf of the WG chairs, we look forward to your feedback on the 
>> topics for our LA discussion. Please indicate your choices as soon as 
>> possible and in any event by this *Friday 3 October*. Thank you!
>> 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 <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141003/12cdcde2/attachment-0001.html>

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