[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Sat Jun 3 06:36:57 UTC 2017
Hi Roger,
URL on the bottom of the WHOIS output, I am not against the idea, but
the idea is then that this URL is always shown in the WHOIS regardless
if the domain name is privacy protected or not?
The reason for asking, in the case of an NA-TPPP, the Registrar or a
Registry would not know if the domain name is privacy protected or not.
Thanks,
Theo
On 2-6-2017 17:03, Roger D Carney wrote:
>
> Good Morning,
>
>
> 1. As Steve suggests, I am not opposed to providing some of the
> applicant information post accreditation (contract). I don't have
> any suggestions of exactly what should be published/shared, this
> would be something that the group would need to dig into.
> 2. As I stated on the call, I am very much opposed to putting a URL
> in the suggested fields (Registrant Name/Org). Generally, mixing
> of types/meaning in a single field is considered poor data
> management practice. Additionally, many (arguable most) of the
> WHOIS queries are automated lookups, parsing of this field will
> become increasingly more difficult with "non" name data in these
> fields. As Steve mentioned the WHOIS inaccuracy URL was added but
> it was just an addition to the end of the WHOIS output, it was not
> integrated into some other data field. If the suggestion is to put
> this new URL at the end of the WHOIS output, that may be more
> acceptable.
> 3. I do like Steve's approach to the unaffiliated topic, I don't
> think it is an insolvable problem, but definitely a difficult
> scenario. The PDPs final report clearly stated that they
> recognized the complexity in this specific topic.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins
> <amy.bivins at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:32 AM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from
> 30 May PP Call
>
> Thanks so much, Steve!
>
> What do others on the IRT think about making portions of successful
> applications for accreditation public? I’ll note that while portions
> of new gTLD applications were published, no portion of registrar
> applications for accreditation are published.
>
> On the third point, regarding unaffiliated providers—good idea re:
> possibly working through some of these issues in a smaller group. I’d
> encourage everyone on the list to please share any potential issues
> (and potential solutions!) that you can see on the horizon for these
> types of providers, and we can discuss next steps on Tuesday’s call
> (along with the PSWG’s proposal, which I understand should be ready
> for distribution before the call).
>
> Best,
>
> Amy
>
> *From:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Metalitz, Steven
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:13 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from
> 30 May PP Call
>
> Thank you Amy for this valuable summary. I will do my best to meet
> the deadlines you have set.
>
> Regarding point 1, thanks for clarifying the feedback that was
> received in February regarding public disclosure of accreditation
> applications , which as you note was rather evenly split. The point I
> was raising on yesterday’s call was not asked about in the February
> questionnaire: once a p/p provider has successfully achieved
> accreditation, should some or all of the content of its successful
> application be available to the public? I would argue yes, in the
> spirit of transparency regarding how the provider proposes to achieve
> compliance with the accreditation standards.
>
> Regarding point 2, as stated on yesterday’s call, I support option
> (b), again in order to promote transparency and to make the Whois
> system more user-friendly to non-professional users, who might simply
> be baffled to find that the registrant is “P/P Provider, PP #123.” A
> link to the page from which more information about who is providing
> the service and what are its policies strikes me as a minimal but
> significant improvement. As referenced in your note, it was stated on
> the call yesterday – but also contested in the chat --- that inclusion
> of a URL in a field otherwise devoted to ordinary text might cause
> some unspecified technical problems to Whois users. It would be great
> to get more specifics about what those problems might be. I would note
> that there are other required fields in Whois today that include URLs,
> such as the recently added field directing users to the page where a
> Whois accuracy complaint can be made, and I am not aware of technical
> problems that have ensued.
>
> Finally, on point 3, the issue of how to accommodate p/p providers who
> are not affiliated with accredited registrars has been the subject of
> scores of hours of discussion over the years, going back to the PDP
> working group and continuing in this IRT. The point of view of many
> registrars seems to be that this is an insoluble problem and that
> unaffiliated p/p providers should simply be prohibited from seeking
> accreditation, leaving this significant and lucrative business
> opportunity to the sole control of accredited registrars. I hope we
> can find a better solution and look forward to working toward that
> end. I wonder if having a smaller group take the issue offline and
> report back in a couple of weeks might be a constructive way to proceed.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> *image001*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>**
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY
> FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED
> RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION,
> AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS
> MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
> REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR
> TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM
> YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
>
> *From:*gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 12:57 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30
> May PP Call
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thanks so much for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy
> IRT call. If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to listen to
> the recording because we covered a lot of ground today. The recording
> is available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/
> <https://participate.icann.org/p6bxagpwaq9/>
>
> *_IRT Action Items_*
>
> (1)*Please submit any additional feedback you have on the draft v1
> applicant guide (attached) by Friday*. We will be discussing again and
> there will be more opportunities for discussion, but the more feedback
> we have now the better, as we will use the feedback received this week
> in drafting v2. A summary of your feedback received to date on the
> applicant guide is attached. I am also attaching the results of the
> IRT survey of initial operational questions that you completed back in
> February—this came up briefly on today’s call. I apologize that I
> over-stated the point referenced today on the call—I said that the
> majority of the IRT said in the poll that the existence of a PP
> Provider application and/or the contents of an application for
> accreditation should not be made public. This is true—there was a
> slight majority of the IRT for this point on each of the questions,
> but it was a very close result for both questions and the number of
> participants was relatively low for this poll.
>
> (2)*Please submit your feedback on the RDDS labeling proposals
> discussed on today’s call no later than Friday*. For those not on the
> call, the Registrar Subteam has developed two possible solutions to
> implementing the recommendation that registrations involving privacy
> and/or proxy services should be clearly labeled as such in WHOIS. The
> first solution would be to (a) require that the privacy/proxy service
> provider name and ICANN ID appear in the registrant name and/or the
> registrant organization field (the “or” is to accommodate privacy
> services where the customer’s name appears in the Registrant Name
> field--this was discussed further on the call). The second solution
> was (b) require that the privacy/proxy service provider’s name, ICANN
> ID and a URL to the ICANN webpage listing of all accredited providers
> and contact information.
>
> **
>
> *The IRT was roughly split on these proposals. Some IRT members saw an
> added benefit to the URL (which would provide an easily-identifiable
> source of Provider contact information that may not be visible in
> WHOIS), while others thought the URL was unnecessary and could
> complicate automated uses of the label. If no clear consensus is
> reached on the list on the path forward on this one, we will take this
> to a poll.*
>
> **
>
> (3)Please submit any additional feedback you have regarding the
> “unaffiliated provider” issue raised by the registrar subteam today on
> the call. In summary, members of the registrar subteam have suggested
> that certain operational issues may make the accreditation of
> providers that are not affiliated with a registrar highly undesirable
> or impossible.
>
> There have been challenges noted by IRT members and staff throughout
> this IRT related to unaffiliated providers (particularly in the area
> of de-accreditation). However, as noted on the call, the Final Report
> does clearly reference unaffiliated providers, which seems to indicate
> an intent that unaffiliated providers should be permitted to become
> accredited. As a result, any potential question/action that would
> limit eligibility for accreditation by providers that are not
> affiliated with a registrar would likely need to be taken to the GNSO
> Council for guidance. At this stage, we are hoping to gather as much
> IRT input as possible on this so that we can determine how best to
> proceed. Please send your feedback to the list on this topic this
> week. As any changes on this point would have a substantial impact on
> the overall implementation of this program, any action on this should
> be taken as soon as practicable.
>
> Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Please don’t
> hesitate to contact me or write to the list directly if you have
> additional comments or questions.
>
> *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
>
> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
>
> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>
>
> www.icann.org <http://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20170603/d0a2be69/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20170603/d0a2be69/image002-0001.png>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list