[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition

Wed Dec 1 14:57:48 UTC 2021

Hi,

I think we need to differentiate between mandatory accuracy requirements
and those accuracy processes adopted voluntarily by selected contracted
parties for their very particular, specific purposes. Most of these TLDs
have some form of eligibility requirement, something that simply is not the
case for most TLDs.

For example, just because registrar A may have chosen to only accept
registrations after verifying fingerprints and DNA of each customer, this
does not make such a requirement relevant for our discussions. If we
venture down this rabbit hole of voluntary measures intended to achieve
very specific goals that do not apply to all TLDs equally, I dare predict
we will still be here months from now.

Like Roger, I do not recall agreeing to the proposed changes, in fact, I
think we need to object to most of them as they do not reflect a position
we can support.

Best,
-- 
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
*KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*

T: +49 6894 9396901
M: +49 6894 9396851
F: +49 6894 9396851
W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of
Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in
England and Wales with company number 8576358.

This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for
the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of
dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this
email with any files that may be attached.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:58 PM Michael Palage <michael at palage.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
>
>
> As someone that watched the video recording twice allow me to recount the
> events of Nov 4th.
>
>
>
> In advance of the call there had been two “definitions” (contractual
> construction / explanations) put forth for consideration.  One by the
> Registrars and the one put forward by myself.
>
>
>
> In an effort to reconcile these two definitions, I opted to mark-up the
> Registrar’s “definition”.  The first change was replacing the phrase “shall
> strictly” with “is.”  Specifically I cited to Background Briefing
> Assignment #1 which stated in relevant part that:
>
>
>
> However, if the *complaint is about identity* (e.g., the registrant is
> not who they say they are), Contractual Compliance may ask the registrar to
> provide further information. (emphasis added).
>
>
>
> After the group acknowledged that this excerpt from the ICANN briefing
> document showed a larger remit than just syntactical and operational
> accuracy, the “shall strictly” phrase was redlined and replaced with ‘is.”.
> Alan Greenburg from ALAC tired to propose an alternative wording but the
> redline stayed as “is”.
>
>
>
> The next proposed redline was inspired largely by the following excerpt
> from the ICANN72 GAC communique which states in relevant part:
>
>
>
> The GAC gives particular importance to the verification, validation and
> correction of all registration data by registrars, *and certain
> registries*, in line with their contractual obligations, and supports
> rigorous monitoring and enforcement of such
>
> contractual obligations by ICANN. (emphasis added)
>
>
>
> These changes again were made with no substantive opposition from the
> group.
>
>
>
> As I have stated previously these agreed upon changes where lost when the
> document was exited at the end of the call. I have consulted with ICANN Org
> and they are unaware of how these changes were lost. However, I believe the
> video clearly shows that the deletion was NOT an intentional act because no
> one spoke to the text being removed, it just disappeared.  Please review
> the video for yourself, I have provided the time stamp to help make
> everyone’s review easier.
>
>
>
> Now if the RySG and RsSG are going to maintain their objection to the
> previous redline “definition” and instead advocate for the RrSG
> “definition” we will address this topic AFTER the we conclude the questions
> to ICANN Org, but before we begin our GAP analysis.
>
>
>
> I do have a specific request for Marc, Beth and Sofie.  During the next
> RySG call could you seek clarification from the RySG on whether Registries
> believe they have a right under their Registry Agreement to verify the
> accuracy of data elements that they process as part of domain name
> registrations in their respective TLDs. Additionally, what steps if any
> does ICANN Compliance take in connection with Registry Audits regarding
> this verification as I do believe it is relevant to our discussion here in
> this Working Group.
>
>
>
> Listed below are a non-exhaustive list of Registry Operators that involve
> some level of accuracy /registrant vetting beyond just email and phone
> accuracy (syntactical and operational) as part of their registry operations:
>
>
>
>    1. From the original 2001 proof of concept round, .AERO was one of the
>    first TLD that required the process of registrant data prior to being able
>    to obtain a gTLD domain name registration.  If you look at the current
>    .AERO registration website you will see the following requirement:
>
>
>
> Obtain your .aero ID, prior to registration of your chosen domain name
> through a .aero authorised registrar, this unique validity process screens
> potential domain registrants thus ensuring the integrity and the
> exclusivity of the .aero domain.
>
> See https://information.aero/registration and
> https://information.aero/node/add/request-aero-id
>
>
>
>    1. From the 2004 Sponsored round perhaps the best example was .XXX
>    which made the following representations:
>
>
>
> 5.0  PREVENTING ABUSIVE REGISTRATIONS
>
>
>
> The Registry will authenticate members of the Sponsored Community, as part
> of the name registration process. As part of this process, the Registry
> will validate contact information for the Registrant, secure the
> Registrant’s affirmative consent to the Registry-Registrant Agreement, and
> issue unique Membership Credentials. The Membership Application Process
> must be completed before a domain name is permitted to resolve in the TLD.
>
> See https://www.icmregistry.com/about/policies/launch/#general_aval
>
>
>
>    1. fTLD submitted an approved RSEP to ICANN for the processing of
>    Registrant information prior to registration. The name of this RSEP is
>    Dynamic Registration Verification and is available here, see
>    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rsep-2017039-bank-et-al-request-11dec17-en.pdf
>    This webpage shows the information that fTLD collects from prospective
>    registrants as part of their verification process, see
>    https://www.register.bank/get-started/
>
>
>
>    1. NABP, the Registry Operator of .PHARMACY, has also vetted
>    prospective registrants as part of its registration process, see
>    https://nabp.pharmacy/programs/accreditations-inspections/dotpharmacy/#apply
>
>
>
>    1. In addition, every .BRAND Registry Operator has a requirement to
>    limit registrations in that TLD to either the Brand owner or “Trademark
>    Licensee” so this would be a further example of where a Registry Operator
>    is processing data about a Registrant (e.g. Trademark Licensee) that may or
>    may not appear in the Whois/RDDS output.
>
>
>
>    1. There are also numerous RSEPs filed by Registry Operators seeking
>    “Registration Validation” which clearly go above just syntactical and
>    operational validation, e.g. Chinese Real Name Verification.
>
>
>
> I hope this removes any ambiguity as to the events of Nov 4th.  If,
> however, the RySG and RrSG maintain their objection we will revisit prior
> to our GAP analysis discussion as noted above.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:06 PM
> *To:* Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com>; michael at palage.com;
> gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual
> Construct/ Definition
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> The changes were definitely tracked.  I was under the impression that we
> agreed to those changes. If so, then they should be reinserted as a
> compromise that we can live with for the purposes of the scoping exercise.
> Any binding definitions will be negotiated by the eventual PDP.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
>
>
> Lori S. Schulman
>
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
>
> *International Trademark Association (INTA)*
>
> +1-202-704-0408, Skype:  LSSchulman
>
> lschulman at inta.org, www.inta.org
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Sarah Wyld
> *Sent:* Monday, November 29, 2021 3:27 PM
> *To:* michael at palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual
> Construct/ Definition
>
>
>
> Hi team,
>
>
>
> I (of course) can’t speak for the registries or answer this question, but
> I do want to say, I’m glad the text in the screenshot was not updated. The
> definition in that section of the document should remain as we had proposed
> it back on Oct 29, and any changes should be tracked elsewhere. Maybe
> that’s why the changes were removed?
>
> See you tomorrow, thanks!
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Sarah Wyld*, CIPP/E
>
>
>
> Policy & Privacy Manager
>
> Pronouns: she/they
>
>
>
> swyld at tucows.com
>
> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>
> *Sent: *November 26, 2021 12:02 PM
> *To: *gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
> *Subject: *[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual
> Construct/ Definition
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> For those colleagues that celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday, I
> hope you had an enjoyable time with your family and friends and did not eat
> too much.   I would also like to thanks those team members that showed up
> for our brief Administrative Call yesterday.
>
>
>
> In preparing for the call yesterday I noted some of the new additions
> added by the RySG to the questions for ICANN staff. Thank you for these
> additions Roger. This flagged a previous issue which I had raised with our
> ICANN colleagues last weekend and it involves the current working
> contractual construct / definition.
>
>
>
> In the RySG questions they cited to the proposed RrSG accuracy
> “definition” (aka contractual construct):
>
>
>
> "Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the
> registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder as well
> as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email
> address."
>
>
>
> Last week when I was looking for the latest and greatest contractual
> construct/definition I noted that there was a technical glitch when
> reviewing the Zoom recording which I will summarize below.
>
>
>
> If you go to the Zoom recording from the Nov 4th call you will see that
> the red lined version of the contractual construct/definition which was
> agreed to during the call and which is reflected below.
>
>
>
>
>
>  However, at the conclusion of the call as we were wrapping up the
> session, these edits were lost
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, I would like clarification from the RySG do they wish to cite
> the group’s current working contractual construct/definition that was
> agreed to during the Nov 4th call, or do they intend to cite to the RrSG
> pre November 4th call  contractual construct/definition?
>
>
>
> I know these technical glitches, e.g. delta in Google Doc, Alan receiving
> emails, and the unavailability email archives makes things a little more
> challenging. However, I know our ICANN colleagues are working on the email
> issues, and I am sure we will be able to achieve most of our work
> asynchronously if we put our minds to it.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list
> GNSO-Accuracy-ST at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211201/cd0b2d3d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211201/cd0b2d3d/image001-0001.png>