[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Summary, action items from today's PP IRT call
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Sat Feb 24 21:12:01 UTC 2018
So for most of us this will be a manual process and we need an API to
send ICANN the reports?
This means we need to integrate the API into a backend and front end
solution, ie from spreadsheet to API.
Perhaps some bigger registrars might want to weigh in on this, how
compatible is this with your current abuse desk software?
I do expect some push back from the NCUC and the NCSG here though. It
seems providing privacy is only available for "premium club members". Is
this what the WG envisioned??
Theo
On 24-2-2018 02:44, Amy Bivins wrote:
>
> Hi Sara,
>
> Sorry for the delay—needed to consult with the tech team on this one.
>
> ICANN’s Registration Reporting Interfaces (RRI) is a RESTful API that
> uses HTTP basic authentication (RRI does not provide a graphic
> interface). This API is currently used by both Registry Operators and
> Data Escrow Agents for their daily and monthly reporting, and soon to
> incorporate Registrar Data Escrow Agents as well.
>
> For the reports, the contents to upload are described in the PPSP
> reporting specification (CSV formatted text files in UTF-8 encoding).
>
> The draft reporting specification for Privacy/Proxy is attached. We’ve
> updated this to account for the discussion on the call this week that
> seemed to prefer quarterly rather than monthly reporting, though we
> can revisit that if we get more input on that specific point. For
> reference, the latest public version of for the Registries is
> available at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-icann-registry-interfaces
>
> Thanks, and have a great weekend, all!
>
> Amy
>
> *From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:33 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Summary, action items from
> today's PP IRT call
>
> Amy,
>
> Additionally, it would be helpful if you could provide a bit more info
> re *Report Model, Issue 2*. Does ICANN’s reporting interface allow
> for files to be uploaded or is it a fill in the blank interface? If
> uploads are allowed, is there a limit on file size, type of file that
> can be used? Any additional information on how this interface works or
> is intended to work that would be very helpful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sara
>
> *sara bockey*
>
> *sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
>
> *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: *Sara Bockey <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 1:51 PM
> *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: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Summary, action items from
> today's PP IRT call
>
> Amy,
>
> As you know, several registrars were not able to attend Tuesday’s call
> and I think it’s safe to say many members a facing bandwidth issues.
>
> As you also know, GDPR is fast approaching and several sessions were
> held this week on the topic. GDPR is mission critical and requires a
> lot of registrar time investment. That said, it is likely that IRT
> members have not had a chance to listen to the recording or catch up
> on the mailing list. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to
> allow an additional week to respond to our punch list below. There is
> no reason why we cannot allow this additional time. We are not facing
> a hard deadline as with GDPR, and it is very important for this IRT to
> produce quality work, not quick work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sara
>
> *sara bockey*
>
> *sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
>
> *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
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amy
> Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins 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: *Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:55 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: *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
>
> 1. 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
> 2. The IRT appears to find a 24-hour response time acceptable
> for high-priority requests from LEA that qualify for this
> specification.
> 3. *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180224/0bdfb5b0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list