<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Please find attached the updated template with the additional NCSG comments incorporated.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><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> Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday 18 March 2014 04:39<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a 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 - template Category B - question 3<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div 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
<a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a 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></div></div></span></body></html>