<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I am sad to say but the 2013 RAA does _nothing_ to guarantee acurate
whois as long as the data makes sense and the email address does not
bounce after the first feedback loop, the data is verified/validated
with no guarantee that the address actually belongs to the
registrant. <br>
<br>
For example, on the pharmacy domains registered through our platform
from time to time, what we see mostly are that most of them use
individual data sets that are used for each individual registration,
each set perfectly verifiable, 100% accurate, from individuals all
around the globe who most likely do not have an inkling of the use
of their data in these registrations. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C6212B30B28E0D4CBA5F057882FF144501524E72@EXBE-10.hs.local"
type="cite">
<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 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. <br>
</div>
</span></font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Incorrect, the 2013 RAA
demands no such thing and neither should we. While whois
reminder messages are sent, none of these messages require an
affirmative response. Such a model would be customer-unfriendly
and dangerous to any established business. <br>
<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C6212B30B28E0D4CBA5F057882FF144501524E72@EXBE-10.hs.local"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color:
#000000;font-size: 12pt;"><span lang="en-US"><font color="black"
face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12pt;" dir="ltr">
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] on behalf of
Metalitz, Steven [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">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: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">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: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">Steve Metalitz </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"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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: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"">
<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>
<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>