[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Mon Jun 5 19:23:19 UTC 2017
Good idea Darcy,
I think Steve's idea to work on this in a subgroup is also a good idea.
Either we come up with a solution, wich would be good, or not but then
we have something with substance to kick it back to the GNSO.
Best,
Theo Geurts
On 5-6-2017 20:59, Darcy Southwell wrote:
>
> Thanks for this example, Theo.
>
> @Amy, Can staff provide clarification tomorrow on the Final Report’s
> position about P/P providers unaffiliated with an accredited
> registrar? I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the IRT to decide
> whether unaffiliated P/P providers are allowable. Seems like the IRT
> may be creeping into policy development.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of theo
> geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl>
> *Reply-To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, IRT Action Items from
> 30 May PP Call, “unaffiliated provider” issue
>
> Thanks Amy,
>
> The problem scope of non-affiliated third party privacy providers
> (NA-TPPP) is as follows.
>
> Using the law firm that as mentioned in the chat during the call as an
> example. There are many more examples.
>
> Imagine a law firm with a lot of clients providing privacy services.
> The law firm is accredited for this service and not affiliated with a
> Registrar.
>
> * Total domain names 100.000
> * Scattered over 100 Registrars for whatever reason
>
>
> Now the law firm goes under for some reason.
> ICANN starts the de-accreditation process and obtains the RDE deposit
> from the escrow provider.
>
> Operational issues:
>
> * The RDE Deposit does not include Registrars, they are not affiliated.
> * Email, email forward, email alias, website forms with a relay,
> most likely will not be operational
> * If email is down, IRTP-C will prevent domain name update,
> Registrars cannot fix this in a simple manner.
>
> Who is going to fix this? I think that is the first question, or
> perhaps the first question is, do we want to be in a situation that is
> a huge can of worms and eventually the registrant will take a hit at
> some point?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Theo Geurts
>
> On 30-5-2017 18:57, Amy Bivins wrote:
>
> 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/
>
> *_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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170605/50a86e9a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list