<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
@font-face
{font-family:"?? ??"}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria","serif"}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria","serif"}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>I'm checking email that built up during my break, while waiting for a delayed flight home. To Michigan from Nevada. Those who know US geography will understand it when I say I'm in no hurry. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will add a sub point to Todd's second question. Is it within our scope to suggest the specifics if we decide to recommend "more," or does policy development end there? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Don</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Sent from my tablet<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
>From "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com> <br>
Date: 03/14/2014 4:55 PM (GMT-05:00) <br>
To Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>,gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <br>
Subject Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - updated template Cat B - question 2
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Thanks Marika. I missed part of the call on Tuesday where this may have been discussed, but I don’t see how the draft preliminary recommendation follows
from the attached Word document, insofar as it concludes that p/p customer data should be validated and verified in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in the 2013 RAA. I thought the current posture was that the WG has basically agreed to the
2013 RAA requirements as a floor, but that there was not yet agreement on: 1) whether validation/verification requirements should go beyond the 2013 RAA; and 2) if so, how.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">On the first question (2013 RAA vs. “more”), it appears that more of the responses in the attached argue for “more” than not. That also seems to have been
an open topic in our email threads (see attached). Just to reiterate from that thread, the basic argument on the “more” side (which I agree with) is that in order to partially offset the delay that will inevitably occur when accessing p/p data, the “more”
should consist of whatever reasonable validation/verification steps can be taken to increase the likelihood that the information ultimately obtained will be accurate enough to facilitate contact. I suppose that if we ultimately settle on a “reveal” procedure
that is essentially instantaneous in certain cases (once we get to discussing “reveal” procedures), that may mitigate this concern. But absent assurances on that point, I would think we need to address it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">On the second question: the attached appears to include multiple proposals as to what may or may not ultimately comprise the “more” (<i>e.g.</i>, email
<u>and</u> phone vs. or; periodic/annual re-verification vs. re-verification with information suggesting the contact information is incorrect; etc.). Have we debated the relative merits of those? Are some more likely to be effective than others? I have my
thoughts, but I’m curious to hear what everybody else thinks.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Thanks all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Todd. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Marika Konings<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - updated template Cat B - question 2</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Dear All,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Following our call earlier this week, please find attached the updated template for Category B – question 2. To facilitate your review, I've posted below the
draft preliminary recommendation in which we've aimed to capture the conversation to date taking into account the language of the Whois Accuracy Specification Program of the 2013 RAA. If you are of the view that this does not accurately capture the WG's view
to date and/or have specific suggestions for changes / edits, please share those with the mailing list. Also, if there are any other issues that need to be addressed in relation to this question and/or the preliminary recommendation, please share those as
well.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Best regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Marika</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Draft Preliminary Recommendation – Category B – question 2 (Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to conduct periodic checks to ensure accuracy
of customer contact information; and if so, how?)</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">The WG recommends that proxy and privacy customer data be validated and verified in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in Whois Accuracy Specification Program
of the 2013 RAA. The WG furthermore agrees that in the cases where validation and verification of the P/P customer data was carried out by the registrar, reverification by the P/P service of the same, identical, information should not be required. </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Similar to ICANN’s Whois Data Reminder Policy (<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/wdrp">http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/wdrp</a>),
the P/P provider should be required to inform the P/P customer annually of his/her requirement to provide accurate and up to date contact information to the P/P provider. If the P/P provider has any information suggesting that the P/P customer information
is incorrect (such as P/P service receiving a bounced email notification or non-delivery notification message in connection with compliance with data reminder notices or otherwise) for any P/P customer, the P/P provider must verify or re-verify, as applicable,
the email address(es). If, within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving any such information, P/P service does not receive an affirmative response from the P/P customer providing the required verification, the P/P service shall verify the applicable contact
information manually. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>