[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Wed Nov 22 19:57:40 UTC 2017
Hi Alex,
My thinking is here. Currently, the sky is not falling, and I think the
sentiment amongst the registrars is, the sky might be falling if we
continue. The reason we want to discuss this more in-depth on the next
call. I think we got a healthy exchange here so I would guess there are
no objections to seeing if we can get some more discussion and
clarity?The issues Darcy raised are also somewhat of an SG issue, our
members asked us, and we have no answers, so there is also a very
practical reason here.
Now we are currently reviewing the drafts since the last few weeks; we
got active discussions going on amongst the registrars.
While reviewing, I noticed we still have some work ahead, which is
normal, I also note that there is language and though not yet perfect
could be the basis to nail two items that been dragging this IRT down.
The de-accreditation process.
Nonaffiliated third party providers.
I will post the combined comments soon, the discussion has not fizzled
out yet, as soon it does I will post them right away and share them with
the IRT.
Best regards,
Theo
On 22-11-2017 19:08, Deacon, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi Theo, all,
>
> A few comments (before I turn into a Turkey)
>
> Theo – can you clarify what you mean by moving out of scope? And the
> earlier comment regarding scope and the need to go back to the GNSO.
> It is not clear what you are suggesting (to me at least).
>
> As for the statements that we must halt work until we understand
> implications of the GDPR I don’t agree. (it is not a binary
> issue/decision IMO)
>
> Is GDPR an important issue that we need to consider? Of course it
> is. Yet we should not jump to conclusions that the policy defined
> isn’t compliant (or close to compliant) given 1) the data of natural
> persons (and others) is already “behind a gate”, 2) we have defined a
> process for those with legit interests to access this data, 3) we have
> agreed that use of any data received is minimized and must be
> managed/processed in a way that complies with data protection laws. 4)
> a detailed process that describes the action on request, 5) etc, etc.
>
> I don’t believe the sky is falling here – and think (and suggest) we
> can continue to make forward progress where possible.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alex
>
> *From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <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"
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:10 AM
> *To: *Chris Pelling <chris at netearth.net>,
> "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 17
> Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> How much of this is expected to be obsolete next year, even if only
> for some subset (EU) of Registrants?
> It looks like we are going to end up with a very complex & burdensome
> accreditation program, with the above in mind is this justified?
> Again, I think we are moving out of scope due to shifting dynamics.
>
> Theo
>
> On 22-11-2017 17:59, Chris Pelling wrote:
>
> I agree with Darcy, before running, we need to walk and understand
> the GDPR implications first for our work. There is no point
> wasting valuable time creating policy/procedures if at the end of
> the day they will be in violation of GDPR - it wastes everyones
> time and resources.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> *To: *"theo geurts" <gtheo at xs4all.nl> <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>,
> gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>, "Steven Metalitz"
> <met at msk.com> <mailto:met at msk.com>, "Sara Bockey"
> <sbockey at godaddy.com> <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 15:19:11
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from
> 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Agree with Theo.
>
> @Steve, My concern here is that we’re moving forward with
> developing processes that may violate the GDPR, which goes into
> effect in just six months. It seems far more efficient to
> identify and discuss how GDPR affects any PDP policy
> recommendations before finalizing processes. We need to take a
> step back to do that first. I’m certainly not a GDPR expert, but
> data collection and transmission registrants who are EU residents
> appear to be problematic if we continue to ignore the GDPR.
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:50 PM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com> <mailto:met at msk.com>, 'Darcy Southwell'
> <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com> <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from
> 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some comments.
> @Darcy I agree on all points, very fundamental, and I think worth
> discussing at the Dec 5th meeting.
>
> 1 I agree Vlad's suggestion is good, the only question I have, and
> we discussed this earlier, do we wait for the second Hamilton
> piece or do we already have enough? I am not sure where at right
> now, perhaps staff can weigh in some to get a sense here.
> 3 PSWG liaison to the IRT, what is the status? Can we indeed
> confirm his availability?
>
> @Steve, your question to Darcy about the GDPR and the impact, and
> obviously I am not Darcy ;) but we contracted parties spent a ton
> of time on this GDPR thing, and we get frustrated how this GDPR
> keeps creeping up on us from angles we never imagined.
>
> Thick WHOIS IRT, I don't have to remind you there, you and I spent
> a lot of time there wrapping it up. Since Johannesburg, that
> thing has been a moving target.
>
> The WG recommendations for the PPSAI were made under different
> circumstances, and I hope you and fellow IRT members can
> understand we registrars we do not want a repeat here.
> Going through an exempt process with compliance is just
> time-consuming, costing money and all that. We need to be in scope
> here, and if we are not, we go back to the GNSO.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Best
>
> Theo Geurts
>
> On 21-11-2017 20:39, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> Re item 3 in Darcy’s list, I understand contact has been
> established with the new PSWG liaison to the IRT. Can we
> confirm his availability to participate in a call on December 5?
>
> Re item 1 I would note Vlad’s earlier comment to the list,
> which I support: “Maybe we can focus on critical issues that
> are not related to GDPR, and once ICANN comes back to us with
> some clarity on GDPR then we can tackle those issues.”
>
> Finally, Darcy perhaps you could clarify how you think these
> issues could be discussed constructively “before moving
> forward with reviewing the draft documents.” Items 2 and 3
> seem to refer to specific points in one or more of the draft
> documents. Re item 1, can you identify any specific points in
> the draft documents you would like to discuss with regard to
> the impact of GDPR?
>
> *age001*
>
> *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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msk.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=ipqD0zxxC6d3NMzXa0aJI9pe2kVgJN6JPhhDZXxSRj8%3D&reserved=0>*
>
> 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:*Darcy Southwell [mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:00 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Sara
> Bockey
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items
> from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> @ICANN Staff,
>
> I wanted to re-raise the issues mentioned below in advance our
> next meeting on 5 December. I think many IRT members would
> like to see us tackle these issues first before moving forward
> with reviewing the draft documents. Specifically:
>
> 1.Impact of GDPR on policy/implementation (i.e., aspects of
> the recommendations from the Final Report that will be
> impacted by the GDPR).
>
> 2.Contradictions between draft implementation language and the
> Final Report (e.g., how/why this is happening).
>
> 3.Concerns with proposed framework Public Safety Working Group.
>
> I suggest that our 5 Dec. agenda should focus on these
> discussion items.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com
> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items
> from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> I agree with Theo. The scope has changed and implementation
> is impacted by GDPR. While I appreciate that Steve wants to
> move forward expeditiously, I don’t believe we can do so
> without jeopardizing the creation of an effective program.
> Further, in just the last week or so, issues have been raised
> about implementation language contradicting the policy. The
> role of an IRT is to implement the consensus policy produced
> in the PDP and we need to spend sufficient time reviewing and
> discussing the implementation to ensure we’re not changing
> policy. Similarly, I think there were questions raised about
> the proposed framework Public Safety Working Group. In
> addition to policy creep, I believe concerns were expressed
> that staff failed to modify the proposed framework based on
> the feedback from IRT participants. Rather than picking
> through the documents line by line, it seems like we should
> step back and have a discussion about the concepts to ensure
> we’re making progress toward an effective implementation that
> reflects the policy. There have also been repeated questions
> raised about the over-engineering of this implementation.
> Because many of the meetings have focused on reviewing
> language from a specific section (rather than reviewing issues
> as whole items), it seems like we haven’t gotten past this
> issue, and should probably take a fresh look at that to ensure
> we’re not making this implementation more complicated than it
> needs to be. We all know that doesn’t lead us to a better
> implementation. Right now, we have four draft documents for
> review/input: (1) accreditation agreement, (2)
> de-accreditation process, (3) applicant guide, and (4) data
> escrow specification. For many members, these require
> operational and legal review (at a minimum). Many registrars
> have commented that 1 December is the earliest they can
> provide full feedback given the complexity of these documents
> (although not all have committed to that date).
>
> Given these issues, as well as the fact that the privacy/proxy
> challenge stemming from IRTP-C needs to be added to this IRT
> for a solution, we need to take a step back and address these
> critical issues first. This isn’t about derailing the IRT;
> it’s about ensuring we don’t create an implementation that’s
> an operational nightmare for providers as well as registrants
> and end users – and that means addressing these critical
> issues first.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>
> *Reply-To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Monday, November 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items
> from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Hi Steve, Vicky,
>
> Now your argument is logical and makes sense.
> Yes, as I mentioned before, CPH's will implement privacy
> services on many different levels to comply with the GDPR, we
> agree here.
>
> My biggest problem with the PPSAI IRT is the changing dynamics.
> The WG contemplated and discussed and made recommendations
> based on a very fixed situation.
>
> In my opinion, privacy services should not be used as bandaid
> for data protection problems.
> Complying with data protection laws was not the driving force
> during the WG days, and now it is.
>
> I think the scope of the IRT has changed and we should deal
> with this before we move on. We need to think a little smarter
> and deeper here before we unleash this to many contracted
> parties who have zero experience with these services and will
> be required to implement this to comply with data protection
> laws.
>
> So how do we do that? I think a fixed set of procedures and
> contractual agreements are essential, yet I do not want us to
> enter into a situation that causes more issues and forces
> providers into a situation that we need to ask compliance to
> defer.
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contractual-compliance-statement-2017-11-02-en
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fresources%2Fpages%2Fcontractual-compliance-statement-2017-11-02-en&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=icMv3YN%2BHoft3q1B6cwVXNzFcyYeTOAaZBU5vfxrupY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> I think that scenario is unwanted for everyone on the IRT is
> it not?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo Geurts
>
> On 6-11-2017 19:40, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> I strongly second Vicky’s comments. The ongoing ICANN
> work re GDPR is of course very important, but let’s not
> let it derail progress on the path we have moved so far
> along toward a P/P service accreditation framework to
> present to the community.
>
> In that regard, I have some sympathy (empathy?) for those
> requesting a relaxation of the comment deadline in light
> of so much other activity demanding our attention. May I
> suggest that we try to get as many proposed edits onto the
> list before our November 14 call (with much thanks to
> those who have already done so), with the goal of dealing
> with them then if possible, but leaving the door open for
> further edits over the next couple of weeks if necessary.
>
> Finally, some ICANN groups are adjusting the scheduling of
> their calls to reflect the return to standard time in
> North America and Europe. Is this group doing so as well?
> If our calls stay at 1400 UTC that is now 9 am EST and 6
> am for those on Pacific time. Moving to 1500 UTC would
> retain the pre-existing local start times, I believe.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> *e001*
>
> *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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msk.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=ipqD0zxxC6d3NMzXa0aJI9pe2kVgJN6JPhhDZXxSRj8%3D&reserved=0>*
>
> 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 *Victoria Sheckler
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:55 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>; Sara Bockey
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action
> items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Please note that ICANN’s work on GDPR’s on a separate
> track and that one thing we know almost for sure is that
> the adoption of rational, predictable rules for
> privacy/proxy will be more important post-GDPR than it
> ever was. So please let’s get those rules in place as
> expeditiously as possible.
>
> On 30-10-2017 11:32, Sara Bockey wrote:
>
> Caitlin,
>
> Thanks for the revised docs. A few items at first
> glance that need to be revised, as I believe they have
> been discussion/raised before. I will take a closer
> look and follow up with additional edits, but in the
> meantime…
>
> 1.Edit the definitions of Proxy Service and Privacy
> Service to match the definitions provided in the Final
> Report/2013 RAA
>
> a.The definitions of Privacy Service and Proxy Service
> reflect those in the 2013 RAA.
>
> b.In this context, the 2013 RAA also defines
> “Registered Name” as a domain name within the domain
> of a gTLD, about which a gTLD Registry Operator (or an
> Affiliate or subcontractor thereof engaged in
> providing Registry Services) maintains data in a
> Registry Database, arranges for such maintenance, or
> derives revenue from such maintenance, and “Registered
> Name Holder” is defined as the holder of a Registered
> Name.
>
> c.It’s noted that ICANN staff has replace “Registered
> Name Holder” with “Customer” in many instances, but I
> question the logic in that since it is inconsistent
> with the RAA.
>
> 2.Edit Sections 3.5.3.3. thru 3.5.3.6 to take into
> consideration GDPR requirements regarding consent.
>
> a.Consent must be explicitly given for each purpose
> and can be withdrawn at any time and not a requirement
> for registration or use of the service. Therefore,
> 3.5.3.3. – 3.5.3.6 (at a minimum) are not compatible
> and must be revise.
>
> 3.Edit section 3.12.2, as it still contains new
> language that has been added since the IRT agreement
> on language in August. The first sentence in its
> entirety should be removed.
>
> a.The section should start with “Well founded…”
>
> Additionally, the following sections need revision or
> at a minimum further discuss by the IRT
>
> 4.Edit Section 3.14 to remove the language re no
> automation. This is not feasible. This language must
> be removed:
>
> a.Provider shall not use high-volume, automated
> electronic processes (for example, processes that do
> not utilize human review) for sending Requests or
> responses to Requests to Requesters or Customers in
> performing any of the steps in the processes outlined
> in the Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework
> Specification.
>
> 5.Edit Section 3.15 – Labeling – to remove excessive
> language.
>
> a.Provider shall ensure that each Registered Name for
> which Provider is providing the Services is clearly
> labeled as such in the Registration Data Directory
> Service, as specified in the Labeling Specification
> attached hereto, and shall otherwise comply with the
> requirements of the Labeling Specification attached
> hereto. This language is duplicative and not
> necessary. Let’s not add unnecessary words to this
> already long document. If there are doing to be extra
> works, perhaps mention complying with applicable local
> laws in light of GDPR.
>
> *sara bockey*
>
> *sr. policy manager | GoDaddy^™ *
>
> *sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>
> 480-366-3616*
>
> *skype: sbockey*
>
> /This email message and any attachments hereto is
> intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein
> and may contain confidential information. If you have
> received this email in error, please immediately
> notify the sender and permanently delete the original
> and any copy of this message and its attachments./
>
> *From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Caitlin Tubergen
> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org"
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 4:44 AM
> *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org"
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action
> items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thanks so much for your participation on today’s
> Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those who could not
> attend, I encourage you to review the recording and
> materials on the wiki,
> https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/24+October+2017
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FIRT%2F24%2BOctober%2B2017&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=1qmqDOSib8cz7oSSE3lYtChxzCshDo3wBbsI%2BW8YFIo%3D&reserved=0>.
>
> During the call, we discussed an overview of the
> changes to the draft PPAA.
>
> Please note that ICANN proposed a deadline of
> *Tuesday,* *14 November* for all comments, concerns,
> and edits to the draft PPAA. The changes from the last
> iteration, provided to the IRT in July, have been
> highlighted in the attached issues list. Please
> respond to the list if you would like to request a
> longer review period.
>
> During ICANN60, we will be presenting an overview of
> the P/P program’s status to the community. Attached,
> please find the slide deck for the presentation.
>
> To highlight a few notes from the IRT’s discussion
> this morning, we received feedback to:
>
> a.Edit the definition of *Working Group in Section
> 1.43*, to specify that the Provider Stakeholder Group,
> if formed, shall only appoint the /provider/
> representatives of the Working Group, and the GNSO may
> appoint other members of the community.
>
> **
>
> b.Add back in the previously-deleted *Code of Conduct
> *language in *Section 3.5.1*.
>
> **
>
> **
>
> c.Add back in the previously-deleted *review provision
> *in *Section 7 of the Customer Data Accuracy Program
> Specification*.
>
> **
>
> If you believe the above items do not reflect the
> intent of the Working Group’s recommendations, please
> reply to the list by *14 November 2017*.
>
> Thank you, and safe travels to those of you attending
> ICANN 60!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> *Caitlin Tubergen*
>
> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
>
> ICANN
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>
> Office: +1 310 578 8666
>
> Mobile: +1 310 699 5326
>
> Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgdd-gnso-ppsai-impl&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=0YSIvwzAzqSfumzXt3K8Y%2Fed5bgadH2USlJP4DNRX0U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgdd-gnso-ppsai-impl&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=0YSIvwzAzqSfumzXt3K8Y%2Fed5bgadH2USlJP4DNRX0U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgdd-gnso-ppsai-impl&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=0YSIvwzAzqSfumzXt3K8Y%2Fed5bgadH2USlJP4DNRX0U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgdd-gnso-ppsai-impl&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=0YSIvwzAzqSfumzXt3K8Y%2Fed5bgadH2USlJP4DNRX0U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgdd-gnso-ppsai-impl&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=0YSIvwzAzqSfumzXt3K8Y%2Fed5bgadH2USlJP4DNRX0U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgdd-gnso-ppsai-impl&data=02%7C01%7CAlex_Deacon%40mpaa.org%7C1a81c6cfcac64603188208d531cbe0d0%7C17e50b56d5dd439b962acc7ecd9ab7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636469674104293238&sdata=0YSIvwzAzqSfumzXt3K8Y%2Fed5bgadH2USlJP4DNRX0U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171122/44a85472/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171122/44a85472/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2776 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171122/44a85472/image002-0001.gif>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list