<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Dear WG members,</div><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; font-size: 14px;">The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as follows; please also note the additional information/suggestions that follow.</div><ol style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><li>Roll call/updates to SOI</li><li>Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework intended for public comment – Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached)</li><li>Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report – see below</li><li>Next steps/next meeting – including circulation of final draft Initial Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and publication date for public comment</li></ol><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes: (1) the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of authorization (as noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April document); and (2) for clarity, the retention of “square brackets” only with reference to language that still reflects two or more options (since the entire document will be open for public comment in any case). </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions from the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29 January 2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion at the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the suggested answers below for discussion/agreement/other comments. Graeme and Steve’s suggestions are highlighted in <b><font color="#0000ff">blue</font></b>, with references to the context for these remaining questions (as page numbers from the draft Report) following in bold and underlined. The actual phrasing of each question can be found in <u><b>Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary</b></u> of the draft Report as well.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 24px;"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;">Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P Providers</span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;">:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul type="disc" style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 24px;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;">The standard for maintaining a P/P provider’s designated point of contact: - <b><font color="#0000ff">the person or team must be “capable and authorized”</font></b> (per the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en" style="color: purple;">IRTP</a>) (see <u><b>pages 50-51</b></u> of the draft Initial Report)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; line-height: 22px;">The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an abuse report is made to the designated point of contact – </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); font-family: Calibri; line-height: 22px;">while the requirement under Section 3.18.1 of the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en">2013 RAA</a> (</span><span style="line-height: 22px;"><font color="#0000ff">“taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond”) had been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has been superseded by the WG’s specific recommendations on Relay and Disclosure</font> (<u>pages 51-52</u>) </span></b></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 24px;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;">To ensure provider contactability – <b><font color="#0000ff">P/P providers should be required to publish contact information on their website, modelled after Section 2.3 of the interim <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy">Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations</a> in the 2013 RAA </font>(<u>pages 51-52</u>)</b></span></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 24px;"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;"> </span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 24px;"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;">On Escalation of Relay Requests</span></u><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px; font-family: Calibri;">:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><li><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height: 22px;">On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure of electronic communications </span><span style="line-height: 22px;">–</span><span style="line-height: 22px;"> retain current language in draft Initial Report (including bracketed options) for public comment.</span></span></li></ul><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div><span style="line-height: 22px;">The current draft language reads as follows:</span></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div><span style="line-height: 22px;"><i>"While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider’s obligation to act in the event it becomes aware of a persistent delivery failure, the WG has yet to agree on obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by a requestor. The following is the current language under consideration by the WG, with the options included in square brackets:</i></span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;"><i><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height: 22px;">“As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned requirements concerning a persistent delivery failure of an electronic communication have been met, the provider [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the most appropriate means of forwarding such a request [and to charge a reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee is to be borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider shall have the right to impose reasonable limits on the number of such requests made by the same requestor.”” </span></span></i><b style="line-height: 22px;">(<u>pages 53-54</u>)</b></p></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of the WG’s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and publish in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a customer’s contact details will be Published due to the customer’s breach of one or more of the Terms of Service. While this is not a Charter-based question, WG members are encouraged – when they come to review the final draft Initial Report – to consider this question and provide additional feedback if necessary.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks and cheers</div><div>Mary</div><div><br></div><div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Mary Wong</span></font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Senior Policy Director</span></font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</span></font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Telephone: +1 603 574 4892</span></font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Email: mary.wong@icann.org</span></font></font></div><div><br></div></div></div></body></html>