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

Wed Jun 20 22:30:35 UTC 2018

Thanks, Darcy- very helpful.

Travel well,

Heather
On 21/06/2018 12:23 AM, "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
wrote:

> 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
> <https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/Privacy+and+Proxy+Services+Accreditation+Implementation>
> 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
> <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/20180621/921fc4d6/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/20180621/921fc4d6/image001-0001.png>