[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call

Sun Nov 26 01:03:29 UTC 2017

Thank you Darcy and all for re-raising your concerns. As I believe we can jointly discuss items 1&3 constructively, it would still be helpful for those IRT members whom believe item number 2 is actually an issue, please provide concrete examples for reference.

Thank you,
Jennifer Gore

Jennifer

On Nov 22, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com>> wrote:

I disagree – we need to move the process along as far as we can, while considering GDPR, but we cannot get bogged down or delay other progress that we can accomplish while assessing GDPR issues.

From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:19 AM
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>; 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

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?
<image001.gif>
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: 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

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

<image002.gif>
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 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

     *   The definitions of Privacy Service and Proxy Service reflect those in the 2013 RAA.
     *   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.
     *   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.

  1.  Edit Sections 3.5.3.3. thru 3.5.3.6 to take into consideration GDPR requirements regarding consent.

     *   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.

  1.  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.

     *   The section should start with “Well founded…”

Additionally, the following sections need revision or at a minimum further discuss by the IRT

  1.  Edit Section 3.14 to remove the language re no automation.  This is not feasible.  This language must be removed:

     *   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.

  1.  Edit Section 3.15 – Labeling – to remove excessive language.

     *   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.

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:

  1.  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.

  1.  Add back in the previously-deleted Code of Conduct language in Section 3.5.1.

  1.  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

_______________________________________________ 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<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<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<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<mailto: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/20171126/d127b98d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2773 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171126/d127b98d/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2775 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171126/d127b98d/image002-0001.gif>