<html>
<body>
Dear All,<br>
<br>
Please find below the notes and action items of today’s RDS PDP WG
meeting.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Lisa <br><br>
<b>Notes 23 August 2016 – RDS PDP WG Meetiing<br>
</b> <br>
<i>These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate
through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the
transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided
separately and are posted on the wiki at:
</i><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/jg6sAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/jg6sAw<br><br>
</a>1) Roll call/SOI updates
<ul>
<li>Reminder: please state your name before speaking for transcription
purposes, mute your microphones when not speaking
<li>Audio only: Geoff Noakes
<li>No SOI updates noted
</ul>2) Finalize updated Problem Statement - to be posted here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/rACbAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/rACbAw</a>
<ul>
<li>The version to be discussed is RDS PDP WG Problem Statement - Clean
22 August - Ayden response to Chuck comments.pdf, posted at link above
<li>Paragraph 1 - proposed edit is to go with language in redline from
last week's call, proposed by drafting team
<li>Paragraph 2 - proposed edit "The core problem will be to deal
with the tension among the varied and competing views..." to
eliminate redundant phrase and reframe how tension is to be handled. Alt
verbs: resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate or address, consider,
recognize, deal with
<li>Paragraph 2 - in sentence re: laws, replace "accounting
for" with "respecting"
<li>Paragraph 3 - concerns have been raised by addition of phrase
"claim to" - as more WG members indicated they were opposed
than in favor of this addition, it will be dropped from proposed edits.
<li>Paragraph 3 - concerns raised about edit that replaces
"registrants" with "parties be they registrants or other
entities" - WG members expressed support for retaining registrants
as a party with vested interest. Also noted that not all registrants
desire anonymity/pseudonymity (e.g., some businesses). Should the
sentence be split to acknowledge that registrant have an interest,
separately from desire of some for anonymity. Or should discussion of
anonymity be removed from the problem statement and debated in the PDP
itself? Proposal to delete the sentence that begins "For
example" and leave that example as well as many others possible
requirement for WG deliberation? The WG chair breaks the tie by deleting
the sentence that begins "For example"
<li>Paragraph 3 - proposed edit to delete final sentence received both
support and opposition on the call. The WG chair proposes deleting the
final sentence as well.
</ul><b>Action: </b>Staff to apply above edit instructions, distribute
the result to PDP leadership for confirmation, and then to the WG after
confirmation as final. <br><br>
3) Continue review of example use cases: (below)<br><br>
<u>19- Certification Authority (Geoff Noakes)</u>
<ul>
<li>Posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw</a>
<li>Comments and Questions:
<li>Is the main focus OV certs? No - DV cert validation can use
highly-automated processes but most CAs do more to make sure it is really
a legit person at the named organization (e.g., bank) that requested the
cert.
<li>Do some CAs bypass WHOIS when validating DV certs? (For example,
demonstrating domain control) Yes some do, but others use WHOIS even for
DV certs - and it is a requirement for OV certs. For example, domain name
may be registered with stolen credit card and so registrant can
demonstrate domain control, but still may be denied a DV cert by a CA
that does more validation
<li>About 200 CAs in the trust stores of most browsers now, level of
validation does vary
<li>Observation - this is a standard business practice, some comments
suggest it should be done another way, but must also recognize that the
impact of doing away with this as a legitimate use would have widespread
impact - important for WG to understand how and why registration is being
used in order to recommend RDS policy
</ul> <u>20- Tech Issue Resolution Examples (Rob
Golding)</u>
<ul>
<li>Posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw</a>
<li>Deferred to next call
</ul> <u>02- Domain name maintenance - Transfer
(Michele Neylon)</u>
<ul>
<li>Posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw</a>
<li>Comments and Questions:
<li>Note that primary actor could be Registrant -or- somebody acting for
them
<li>This use case is the result of extensive GNSO policy development and
approved consensus policy around how to transfer domain names
<li>Common issues are domain being locked, EPP key is invalid, or the
domain is not 60 days old
<li>Is there a difference when there is a proxy registration? Not really,
as long as the email address is functional
<li>Additional policy language that should also be taken into
consideration: new consensus policy on inter-registrar transfer has
dependency on WHOIS data - see summary of that doc provided by Greg
Aaron
<li>Note that EPP/auth code should NOT be published in the RDS
</ul> <u>03- Domain name maintenance - Deletions
(Michele Neylon)</u>
<ul>
<li>Posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw</a>
<li>Comments and Questions: none
<li>Note: Greg Aaron will send a note up to the list regarding the
transfer and deletion use cases. The use cases do not mention a lot
of relevant material from Consensus Policies, and so the use cases seem
incomplete or miss a lot of scope. My note will reference the
material.
</ul> <u>04- Domain name maintenance - DNS Changes
(Michele Neylon)</u>
<ul>
<li>Posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw</a>
<li>Comments and Questions:
<li>Actually covers updating domain's nameservers (not DNS)
<li>Note that registrars have requirements in their agreements with ICANN
that require them to respond within certain time frames (compliance
consideration)
</ul> <u>05- Domain name maintenance - Renewal (Michele
Neylon)</u>
<ul>
<li>Posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/JA6bAw</a>
<li>Comments and Questions: none
</ul>4) Confirm Next Meeting - Tuesday 30 August 16.00 UTC
<ul>
<li>Resume discussion of use cases that have not yet been discussed, and
then move ahead to deliberation of possible requirements
<li>Regarding ICANN57, the first day of the meeting (Thursday 3 November)
there will be two half-day F2F meetings for this PDP and the new gTLD PDP
- (9.00 – 13.00) and (14.00 – 18.00) local time
<li>An opportunity for remote participation will be available as always
<li>An informal poll was taken during the WG call on remote participation
and east vs west coast of US (for North American members)
<li>The leadership of both PDP WGs will work with GNSO secretariat to
finalize meeting slots
</ul><br>
</body>
</html>