<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I do not agree with this draft proposal for various reasons:<br>
<br>
a) The obligations of the p/p provider should match those of the
registrar the registration is performed under. In other words, the
p/p provider should not be required to perform checks that would not
be applicable to the registration as the sponsoring registrar is
under a different RAA. <br>
<br>
b) I disagree with the requirement for manual verification. The
provider should have the option to bow out of the agreement as well.<br>
<br>
c) The draft only uses verify, whereas the RAA differentiates
between verification and validation. Any obligation to other service
providers should match those of the sponsoring registrar.<br>
<br>
d) Why should there be (re-)verification of the email address when a
different data point is claimed to be incorrect? What purpose does
that serve?<br>
<br>
e) The recommendation should contain a carve-out that the obligation
only applies if the reminder to the beneficial owner is not already
sent by the registrar. No need to confuse registrants with duplicate
reminders.<br>
<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.03.2014 22:44, schrieb Marika
Konings:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CF4D2AA3.2F659%25marika.konings@icann.org"
type="cite">
<div>Val, please note that the draft preliminary recommendation
proposes that 'Similar to ICANN’s Whois Data Reminder Policy (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/wdrp"
target="_blank">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'. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does that address your last point? If not, do you or any of
the others that have indicated that they agree with Todd's
assessment have any suggestions for additions / changes to the
draft preliminary recommendation that the WG could review and
consider during its meeting tomorrow?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marika</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; "><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="font-size: 14px; ">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span
style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Valeriya Sherman
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:VSherman@sgbdc.com">VSherman@sgbdc.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Monday 17 March
2014 21:08<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "Metalitz, Steven"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:met@msk.com">met@msk.com</a>>,
"'Williams, Todd'" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com">Todd.Williams@turner.com</a>>,
Marika Konings <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> RE:
[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your review - updated template Cat B -
question 2<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
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}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style>
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" vlink="purple" link="blue"
lang="EN-US">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New
Roman;color: #000000;font-size: 12pt;">
I, <span lang="en-US"><font color="black" face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;"
dir="ltr"><font size="3">Jim Bikoff, David Heasley,
and Griffin Barnett</font></span></font></span>
agree with Todd's assessment: <span lang="en-US"><font
color="black" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12pt;" dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
<div>Contact information that is ultimately revealed
is valuable only if it is accurate. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The validation/verification requirements should
be consistent with the 2013 RAA requirements, but
should go above and beyond those requirements to
ensure the accuracy of contact information. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Registrars already send an annual Whois Data
Reminder Policy notification to registrants,
reminding them to provide accurate and up-to-date
information. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Similarly, the privacy/proxy customer's contact
information should be verified upon initial
registration of the domain name (either by the
registrar or the Privacy/Proxy Service Provider)
and periodically thereafter by automated annual
email re-verification notifications that require
an affirmative response by the P/P
customer. Absence of a response would trigger a
follow-up, reminding the privacy/proxy customer to
provide accurate and up-to-date information. </div>
<font size="3"><br>
Regards,</font></span></font></span><br>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><font
face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
dir="ltr">Valeriya Sherman<br>
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.<br>
1101 30th Street, N.W.<br>
Suite 120<br>
Washington, D.C. 20007<br>
Tel 202.944.2330<br>
Cell 303.589.7477<br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank"
href="mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu"
tabindex="0" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">vsherman@sgbdc.com</a></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF216181"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
on behalf of Metalitz, Steven [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:met@msk.com">met@msk.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 17, 2014 6:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Williams, Todd'; Marika Konings; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For your
review - updated template Cat B - question 2<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">I agree with Todd’s characterization
of the status of this discussion, and that the
questions he highlights are still open.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">Another aspect of the second
question below is how the p/p service provider
should handle situations in which the contact
information supplied by the customer cannot be
verified. In the parallel situation involving
non-proxy registrations, the RAA specification
calls either for suspension of the registration,
or “manual verification,” which is not defined.
How should this apply in the p/p service
scenario?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">Steve Metalitz </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </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:
10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; ">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma,
sans-serif; "> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Williams, Todd<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 14, 2014 4:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Marika Konings; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For
your review - updated template Cat B -
question 2</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">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: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">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: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">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: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">Thanks all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); ">Todd. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); "> </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:
10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; ">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma,
sans-serif; "><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Marika Konings<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:04
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/wdrp"
target="_blank">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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>