<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; ">Hi All,<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <font
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="2">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.<br>
<br>
</font></font><font size="2"><font face="Calibri">We
respectfully submit there are many rights, as well as
responsibilities, to consider in this question tomorrow... and
look forward to the discussion. <br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</font></font>Dear All,</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CF4C8FB0.2F5A1%25marika.konings@icann.org"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; "><br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;
">In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, please find attached
the proposed template for Category B – question 3 (<span
style="font-family: Calibri; "><i>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.) </i>If there is any additional information
that should be added to the background section, please let me
know.</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;
"><span style="font-family: Calibri; "><br>
</span></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; ">
<ul>
<li>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? </li>
<li>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?</li>
<li>Per the ERRP, 'beginning at the time of expiration and
through the <abbr title="Domain Name System">DNS</abbr> 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.</li>
<li>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?</li>
</ul>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marika</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>