[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Summary, action items from today's PP IRT call

Fri Feb 23 14:54:15 UTC 2018

Regarding LEA and action within 24 hours, I still prefer this language:

Where a disclosure request is categorized as High Priority, LEA will make every effort to contact the Provider directly to discuss the matter, and should it be determined that Provider has useful information, Provider shall use its best efforts to action the request within 24 hours, noting that a court order/subpoena may still be required prior to release of any information.  Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law.

Or at the very minimum, this:

Where a disclosure request is categorized as High Priority, Provider shall use its best efforts to action the request within 24 hours, noting that a court order/subpoena may still be required prior to release of any information.  Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law.

I know Steve thinks this is redundant due to Section 4.2.2, but I would argue that redundancy is necessary.  Otherwise, there is an extreme likelihood of someone citing that section and saying “See! They are not complying with the agreement!”  The wording as written is simply too restrictive and creates the perception of a requirement to disclose within 24 hrs.  You can footnote and cite the related sections all you want, saying “must be actions in 24 hrs” is problematic.  If your argument is that isn’t not restrictive due to Section 4.2.2 and the definition for “action” then there is not harm in being specific and clear in expection.  I propose we use the proposed language above or some variation that is acceptable to Registrars.

Thanks!

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 <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org>
Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:55 AM
To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Summary, action items from today's PP IRT call

Dear Colleagues,

This is a reminder to please submit your input on the points below no later than your EOD Friday.

We will make any final edits to the PPAA draft based on this feedback and intend to send you the updated draft on Monday as soon as the final edits are complete and reviewed internally. You aren’t expected to review the draft prior to Tuesday’s meeting-I realize this is a tight turnaround-I will explain edits that were made  so that you can more easily review the updated draft after our call next week.

Best,
Amy

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for your active participation on today’s Privacy/Proxy IRT call. We covered a lot of ground. If you could not attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording, available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p39onhjd1g1/.

Please review the items discussed today (summarized below) and provide any additional input to the list no later than your EOD Friday, 23 Feb.

Monthly Reporting Specification

  1.  Issue 1: Report frequency—IRT members seemed to support a requirement that these reports be submitted quarterly (current draft suggested monthly). Absent contrary input on the list this week, this change will be made in next draft.
  2.  Issue 2: Report submission—on-list, some IRT members said that using ICANN reporting interface was too complicated and/or unnecessary. No one commented on this topic during today’s meeting. Absent substantial input on this topic on-list this week indicating that many IRT members would support a contrary reporting mechanism, no changes will be made on this point.
  3.  Issue 3: Report format—on-list, some IRT members took issue with requiring both per-registrar and per-TLD reports. During the call, some IRT members indicating per-TLD could be too labor intensive, but other IRT members supported having per-TLD reports. Additional IRT input is requested on this point.
  4.  Issue 4: Report fields—on-list, suggestions have been made for eliminating some fields, and adding others. Based on the discussion in today’s call (absent contrary and/or additional suggestions on-list) the specification will be updated to: eliminate “total” numbers for requests for specific contacts, eliminate “publication” fields for LEA and IP requests, add publication/disclosure-other fields to capture non-LEA/IP requests, add coded “reasons for denial” fields.

PP Applicant Guide

  1.  Issue 1: Shift to “rolling” application period (eliminating application phases). IRT members supported this approach. Absent contrary feedback on-list we will proceed with this approach.
  2.  Issue 2: Elimination of many “essay” questions in favor of “checkbox” questions. IRT members supported this approach. Absent contrary feedback on-list we will proceed with this approach.
  3.  Issue 3: Fees proposal. IRT requested additional documentation of costs to support fees proposal (ICANN org will work to provide this ASAP).

LEA Disclosure Framework Specification

  1.  Issue 1: Language re: notices to customers in Sections 6.3 and 4.3, while not directly contradictory, sets different standards for the timing of notice to customers regarding an LEA request. Per IRT input on-list and on today’s call, edits will be made to make clear that Section 4.3 controls, and language to 4.3 to make clear that provide will notify customer of a request in accordance with ToS and timeframe requested by LEA, subject to any other requirements under applicable law or court order. Any additional input on this is requested by the end of the week.
  2.  Issue 2: Required provider responses to high priority LEA requests. Per discussion on-list and during today’s call, it appears that

     *   If “action” is clearly defined to include (1) disclosure of the requested information, (2) refusal to disclose the requested information for one of the reasons listed in section 4.2.2, and/or (3) in exceptional circumstances, informing LEA that the provider requires additional time to respond, then
     *   The IRT appears to find a 24-hour response time acceptable for high-priority requests from LEA that qualify for this specification.
     *   IRT feedback is specifically requested on this point. Please respond to the list noting whether you (1) support, (2) oppose, or (3) would edit (explain how) the requirement that providers be required to action high-priority requests from LEA within 24 hours of receipt of the request from LEA. If there is disagreement on this, this will be flagged during the public comment period.
Best,
Amy

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20180223/c6ea3d83/attachment-0001.html>