[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 3 October Privacy/Proxy IRT call

Tue Oct 10 12:57:37 UTC 2017

Why has the word “specific” been deleted from section 6.10 of the Applicant Guide v.3?  The WG consensus recommendations (#8) called for the specific grounds for disclosure, publication, and service termination to be disclosed  in the published TOS.

[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] On Behalf Of gtheo
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 6:38 AM
To: DiBiase, Gregory; gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 3 October Privacy/Proxy IRT call

Thanks, Caitlin, this looks pretty good.

On the PPSAI applicant guide

Section 3 The significant changes proposed by one IRT member did not
receive full support.
I missed the last call and still catching up, but if this these are the
edits, Volker proposed a few weeks back they have my full support. As
they were discussed with several other Registrar IRT members, I would
even argue the lack of support means full support, but if there are
Registrars on the list who feel the proposed edit by Volker do not meet
their support, perhaps they should mention this on the list or the call.

Section 3.2 I agree with Volkers position as mentioned by Greg.

Sections 3.3-3.15 I think we are out of scope here. This looks more like
the IRT is going to change the RAA 2013 requirements. The language in
the RAA 2013 should not be exceeded by the PPSAI IRT unless specified by
the WG recommendations. Afterall when this policy goes into effect,
these sections will replace the ones within the RAA 2013.

6.4 This is problematic for Wholesale Registrars as the customers are
not the customers of the Registrars but rather of their resellers.

6.5 Make this a pending item? We still need to figure out if the
enabling or disabling of privacy services or the termination as such is
part of IRTP-C.

6.10 I am somewhat struggling with this section, it seems to have a
specific goal in mind but the current draft somehow overshoots the goal.
A TOS is not something static and may change and be different from what
was submitted during the application.

Best,

Theo Geurts

DiBiase, Gregory via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl schreef op 2017-10-08 09:41 PM:
> Hi Caitlin,
>
> Some initial comments on the revised Applicant Guide:
>
> 1. The two track system is a big improvement. Much clearer.
>
> 2. I noticed the fees have been removed. Will new fees be
> proposed for next week’s meeting? I also believe ICANN was going to
> provide actual costs for background checks (the rationale for
> application fees), when will those be provided?
>
> 3. Re Section 3.2, why is the applicant providing information on
> when ICANN last performed a background check on the applicant’s
> affiliated entity? Doesn’t ICANN know this? I would like to
> reiterate Volker’s position that background checks should not be
> required for affiliated entities. If a check has already been
> conducted on an affiliated entity, responses to the questions in the
> rest of section 3 should be sufficient.
>
> 4. Re 5.2: I lost track of where we are on identifying that the
> registration is a privacy/proxy registration, but wasn’t this
> concern already accounted for in the rules generally? I don’t think
> it should solved by providers individually and therefore this question
> is not necessary.
>
> 5. Generally, the change from asking for descriptions to asking
> for confirmation is welcome.
>
> 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 Caitlin
> Tubergen
> SENT: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:36 PM
> TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> SUBJECT: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 3 October
> Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thank you for your participation on the last Privacy/Proxy IRT call on
> Tuesday, 3 October. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to
> review the recording (HTTPS://PARTICIPATE.ICANN.ORG/P8DNKIUB56V/<HTTPS://PARTICIPATE.ICANN.ORG/P8DNKIUB56V/> [1])
> and materials on the wiki,
> https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/03+October+2017<https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/03+October+2017> [2].
>
> I attached two documents for your review:
>
> (1) The updated Applicant Guidebook/Application (v3)
>
> (2) The updated De-Accreditation Procedure (v2)
>
> NOTES ON UPDATED APPLICANT GUIDE
>
> We received feedback from the IRT that the application process should
> be simplified, which included (1) consolidation of “tracks”, i.e.,
> rather than four tracks, there should be two tracks: unaffiliated
> entities and affiliated entities; (2) a streamlined application, which
> includes only necessary long-form/essay questions and a “check
> box”, short form for the majority of questions. Further to that
> feedback, please review the next iteration (v3) of the Applicant
> Guidebook, with particular attention to Sections 5-6 (p. 10-11).
> Please provide any additional feedback to the list by TUESDAY, 10
> OCTOBER. We will discuss any updates on our call next Tuesday.
>
> NOTES ON DE-ACCREDITATION PROCEDURE
>
> Further to your feedback on the last call about de-accreditation, we
> removed the text in section 2.4.6 about a customer’s personal
> information being revealed in WHOIS following a termination of a P/P
> Provider to reflect the reality of a termination, which would involve
> a potential suspension (per the Whois Accuracy Program Specification
> (WAPS) as opposed to publication of underlying customer information in
> RDDS. A few members of the IRT expressed concern with treating the
> information as inaccurate and suspending names after 15 days, per the
> WAPS. We proposed to change that period to 30 DAYS, i.e., following a
> termination of a P/P provider, the gaining provider/registrar would
> have 30 days to contact the customers to correct the inaccurate WHOIS
> information before potential suspension.
>
> Additionally, a member of the IRT expressed a concern as to which
> entity (the terminated or gaining provider) would be in charge of
> processing abuse complaints during terminations. Until the date of P/P
> provider is terminated, the terminating provider would be responsible
> for handling abuse tickets, as that entity would still be under
> contract. Following the termination date, the new provider would be
> responsible for processing abuse complaints. A member of the IRT
> noted a potential gap, where an individual/entity may file a complaint
> with the terminating entity, but if it is not responded to, it would
> need to file a new version of the same complaint with the gaining
> entity. If you have any suggestions about how this should be handled,
> please feel free to make suggestions to the list by TUESDAY, 10
> OCTOBER.
>
> On our next call on Tuesday, 10 October, we will be discussing the
> proposed updates to the attached documents. I am also hoping to have
> the next iteration of the Accreditaiton Agreement to share with you
> early next week.
>
> Thank you again for all of your work on this!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Caitlin
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://participate.icann.org/p8dnkiub56v/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ebda0b0ecee56f6650584ca3c6df298c9b9b9d14eecf0b0d980f2dd84f7c45cb<https://participate.icann.org/p8dnkiub56v/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ebda0b0ecee56f6650584ca3c6df298c9b9b9d14eecf0b0d980f2dd84f7c45cb>
> [2] https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/03&#43;October&#43;2017<https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/03&#43;October&#43;2017>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://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<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/20171010/cc675b39/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171010/cc675b39/image001-0001.gif>