[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updates, action items following 1 August PP IRT call

Tue Aug 8 13:20:42 UTC 2017

Thanks Amy for your detailed explanation. That makes sense. My apologies as
I got confused when the phrase "blocking new registrations" was being used.

Regards,
Eric

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org> wrote:

> Hi Eric (and all),
>
>
>
> Thanks for this! Does anyone else have comments on these points? I’m
> adding these to the tracker and will distribute the updated file after our
> call tomorrow.
>
>
>
> With respect to your second point on 5.7.1, the goal of this provision
> (regarding provider suspension) would be to suspend the provider’s
> authorization to offer new PP services, specifically, during the suspension
> period (as a step short of termination, if the Provider is working with
> ICANN compliance to resolve a Compliance issue). This suspension would
> include a prohibition on providing PP services for new domain name
> registrations (the provider could continue providing services for existing
> names for existing customers) or adding a new PP service to an existing
> registration that didn’t previous have the PP service. Is that what you
> were asking—if I misunderstood your question could you please expand on it?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Amy
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric Rokobauer
> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 3:00 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updates, action items following 1
> August PP IRT call
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Some feedback for the items discussed in this thread.
>
>
>
> 3.5.4.1 - I support Sara's suggested language.
>
>
>
> 5.7.1 - Blocking new registrations will present technical challenges and
> still just not sure how we can achieve it (whether affiliated with an ICANN
> ID or not).
>
>
>
> And maybe something to keep in mind -
>
> t
>
> hose applying
>
> are doing so in order to
>
>  obtain the right to provide
>
> privacy/proxy as a service
>
> .
>
>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> And if those providers 
>
> were to be in violation
>
> , they 
>
> could lose their right to
>
>  offering that service.
>
>
>
> D
>
> o we intend for it to also
>
> mean they lose the right to
>
> doing 
>
> 
>
> registrations
>
>  also
>
> ? Having this section feels like it would suggest that.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT
> call. We made a lot of progress. If you were unable to attend, the
> recording and materials are available on the wiki,
> https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/01+August+2017.
>
>
>
> I’ve updated the issues list (attached) for the topics discussed today
> (Issues 5, 6, 9, 10, 13) based on your feedback.
>
>
>
> *IRT Action Items*
>
>    1. Please provide any additional input you have on issues 5, 6, 9, 10,
>    and 13 *no later than next Monday, 7 August.* In particular, please
>    consider the following questions that arose during today’s meeting:
>
>
>    1. Regarding issue 6 (Section 3.5.4.1 of the draft PPAA), should we
>       consider reducing the required period from 15 days to some shortened
>       period? If yes, do you have recommendations for what the shortened time
>       period should be?
>       2. Regarding issue 13 (PPAA section 5.7.1): (i) Is it feasible for
>       a registrar to block new registrations from a suspended provider (provided
>       that provider is identified by its ICANN ID during the registration
>       process)? (IRT input on this point has been mixed); (ii) If the answer to
>       (i) is yes, is any additional language required with respect to Point 5
>       raised during the call (“sounds like we need an EPP for PP Providers”)?
>
>
>    1. Please complete the IRT poll re: data escrow and additional PPAA
>    discussion topics no later than Friday, 4 August,
>    https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS
>    <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XCMSS>
>
>
>
> *Next Week*
>
> Next week, we plan to discuss Issues 4 and 23(data retention), 12
> (accreditation term), 15 (Customer Data Accuracy Spec), 17-19 (LEA
> Specification). We will discuss data retention and the LEA specification
> first, to ensure we can discuss both of these while we have our PSWG
> colleagues on the call.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your continued consideration of the issues discussed
> today and your completion of the poll. If you have questions or comments
> before our next meeting, please send them to the list.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Amy
>
>
>
>
>
> *Amy E. Bivins*
>
> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
>
> Registrar Services and Industry Relations
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 <(202)%20249-7551>
>
> Fax:  +1 (202) 789-0104 <(202)%20789-0104>
>
> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org
>
> www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20170808/292bc85b/attachment.html>