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

Wed Jun 20 14:23:09 UTC 2018

The IRT has met just a handful of times in recent weeks, and the timeline has been dependent on when ICANN would provide final documents for IRT review/comment, so the timeline has not been discussed.  It was just yesterday that ICANN provided the updated timeline for publication that I provided below.  The IRT is scheduled to meet next on July 3, and I suspect this topic will be discussed.  By then, the IRT should have ICANN Legal’s final comments and know whether its comments are minor or significant.

Regarding the disagreement in the 24-hour response time, staff’s plan is to publish the accreditation agreement for public comment indicating the two options and requesting community feedback.

I hope that’s helpful.

Thanks,

Darcy

From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:31 AM
To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Status Update: Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team

Thanks very much, Darcy, for keeping this IRT on our collective radars. The EPDP has absorbed so much time and attention, but it's important that we don't lose sight of other ongoing efforts.

I'm a bit surprised about the delay in going to public comment, as I know you had anticipated that to happen by now and the process of considering comments received to be underway. Has the group discussed how this is likely to affect the overall timeline?

On the disagreements in relation to the Accreditation Agreement, are there solutions on the table for how to move beyond these, or is the group at an unresolvable impasse?

Many thanks and best wishes,

Heather 

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:52 AM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com> wrote:

All, 

I wanted to provide you with an update on the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team in advance of our Council meeting in Panama City.  Overall, the IRT is progressing, albeit quite slowly.  There have been quite a few concerns raised about GDPR’s impact on this program, while others have expressed significant concern over the delays in going to public comment.  Her are the three key items in progress:

Accreditation Agreement:  Latest version was provided to the IRT on June 13 and is under review by IRT members.  The disagreement between IRT members regarding the 24-hour response timeline highlighted for you in April remains.

Accreditation Pricing:  Accreditation pricing details were provided to the IRT on May 22 with updates were provided June 13.  IRT members continue to review.  Some IRT members have challenged some of ICANN org’s assumptions (e.g., 250 applicants) and have open questions about certain activities (e.g., “data retention waiver”).  Based on staff communications, the proposed fee structure will be published for public comment and ICANN org committed to revisiting the proposed fees persuasive reasons to revisit are raised during public comment.

Data Escrow Specification:  Latest version was provided to the IRT on June 15 and is under review by IRT members.  ICANN org is still preparing the documentation that will be required to support the allowance for registrar-affiliated privacy/proxy providers to meet their data escrow requirements.

Regarding public comment timing, that currently hinges on the results of ICANN Legal’s review of the documents for GDPR and other matters, which is expected to be done by the end of June.  If few issues are identified, these materials could be ready to go out for public comment by the end of July (following IRT review/discussion of Legal’s comments).  But if the review identifies more significant issues that must be resolved prior to public comment, publication could be later than that.

Thanks,

Darcy

From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:35 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Status Update: Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team

Dear Councilors,

I wanted to provide you with an update regarding the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team.  

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 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart

_______________________________________________
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/20180620/0368c731/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180620/0368c731/image001-0001.png>