[council] Status Update: Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team

[Heather Forrest]

Thanks very much, Darcy, for this update.

In view of the public comment opening in late April or early May, it would
be timely to have this listed as a discussion item on our 26 April agenda.
In particular we might discuss:
a) any particular needs to be served by this public comment period in light
of the fact that there are outstanding points of disagreement amongst
members of the IRT
b) next steps after public comment, in view of the outstanding points of
disagreement
c) how the IRT guidelines might better serve groups in this situation.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Darcy Southwell <
darcy.southwell at endurance.com> wrote:

> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> I wanted to provide you with an update regarding the Privacy and Proxy
> Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team
> <https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/Privacy+and+Proxy+Services+Accreditation+Implementation>.
>
>
>
>
> *Accreditation Agreement*
>
> IRT members have been working with Staff for some time on the draft
> accreditation agreement and have gotten to a place where most of the
> language is supported by a general consensus.  However, there is one key
> issue that remains unresolved – the PSWG insists the contract require
> Privacy/Proxy providers to respond to “high priority” requests within 24
> hours.  In Puerto Rico, a small group of registrars met with key PSWG
> representatives to try to reach a resolution on this issue, and then the
> entire IRT working group met again to continue attempts to reach a
> resolution.  The discussion has continued on the email list, but remains
> unresolved.
>
>
>
> It is the PSWG’s position that disclosure of customer information for
> “high priority” requests must be done within 24 hours because lives are in
> danger.  They were clear in their statements during the small group meeting
> in Puerto Rico that these “high priority” requests should ideally be
> responded to immediately upon receipt but at least within one hour.  The
> PSWG feels they have compromised extensively by agreeing to 24 hours.
>
>
>
> Registrar members of the IRT are concerned with the contractual language
> for a few reasons:  (1) it creates a presumption of immediate disclosure
> (assuming the provider doesn’t have to perform any
> investigation/verification relating to the request, (2)  a potential demand
> to bypass or ignore due process, and 3) creates an unworkable expectation
> of privacy/proxy providers around the globe, many of whom who do not
> operate with 24x7 staffing for this type of issue.  Some registrar members
> have also expressed concern that establishing this 24-hour disclosure
> requirement is stepping beyond the policy recommendations of the PDP and
> effectively creating new policy.
>
>
>
> *Accreditation Pricing*
>
> In Puerto Rico, Staff presented its accreditation pricing model, based on
> simple cost recovery for ICANN.  IRT member asked a number of questions
> about the detail behind the pricing model, and await that detail from
> Staff.  Based on various meetings in Puerto Rico, some IRT members
> expressed concern that the pricing model simply mirrors the registrar
> accreditation model and was not based on any sort of actual cost-recovery
> plan.  And as mentioned on the Council list last month and during our
> Council meetings in Puerto Rico, there is also concern that some affected
> departments within ICANN org are not aware of the impact this program may
> have on its needs for personnel or other support.
>
>
>
> *Data Escrow Specification*
>
> Significant revisions were needed by Staff to adjust the current registrar
> data escrow specification to fit into this accreditation program.  Staff is
> expected to deliver that draft to the IRT this week.
>
>
>
> Last week’s meeting was canceled due to the AdobeConnect issues. This
> week’s meeting was canceled to allow staff time to get the data escrow
> specification draft done and circulated to the members.  Next meeting
> should be Tuesday, April 10.  Staff has indicated the proposed documents
> will be ready for publication for public comment in late April or Early May.
>
>
>
> I understand this issue will be listed for discussion on our April 26,
> 2018, Council meeting agenda.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
> *Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer
>
> M: +1 503-453-7305 <(503)%20453-7305> │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
>
>
>
> [image: signature_1659676836]
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180403/bb8969a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10183 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180403/bb8969a6/image001-0001.png>