[Gnso-epdp-team] Rec. 19 (time sensitive)
King, Brian
Brian.King at markmonitor.com
Tue Jul 28 14:43:23 UTC 2020
Hey James,
The “and” construction effectively kills this until PPSAI is finished, since it would require the P/P provider to be both affiliated and also accredited (which won’t be possible until PPSAI is finished and P/P providers are actually accredited, so effectively close to never).
Two ways to solve this are:
1. Change “and” to “or”, which makes this provision effective now for affiliated P/P providers (what we said in Phase 1), and also effective when P/P providers can actually get accredited.
2. Strike “affiliated and”, which makes this provision effective when P/P providers can actually get accredited. This in conjunction with the Phase 1 rec would cover both current and future state.
Either one would be acceptable. Plain “and” doesn’t work. Thanks.
Brian J. King
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs, IP Group
T +1 443 761 3726
clarivate.com
[D39D107B]
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:35 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org; James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; Kapin, Laureen <LKAPIN at ftc.gov>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Rec. 19 (time sensitive)
My understanding is that under the new P/P policy, an accredited P/P service has an agreement with ICANN and it is THEIR contractual obligation, not the registrar. The meaningfulness of an affiliated P/P service disappears once the new accreditation process is operational.
Alan
On July 28, 2020 10:20:38 AM EDT, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
If they aren’t “affiliated” then we can’t accept any contractual obligations on their behalf. And if they aren’t “accredited” then they shouldn’t be offering privacy services. So leaving the sentence with “and” ensures that we are both authorized (accredited) and capable (accredited) of meeting the requirement.
Note: I can’t help feeling like we are polishing the chrome on the Titanic here. Privacy services are becoming less relevant (and less attractive to customers) as the year progresses.
J.
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
Reply-To: "Kapin, Laureen" <LKAPIN at ftc.gov<mailto:LKAPIN at ftc.gov>>
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 5:53 AM
To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Rec. 19 (time sensitive)
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
I welcome input from my Registrar colleagues on this issue re: the first sentence of Rec. 19.1 (“In the case of a domain name registration where an affiliated and accredited privacy/proxy service is used. . .”)
GAC Note: Should this be “or” or “and/or”?
“In the case of a domain name registration where an affiliated ‘or’ accredited privacy proxy service is used?”
My understanding is that no P/P providers will actually be “accredited” until the implementation of the PPSAI Policy Recommendations. Having suggested this revision, I want to make sure we’ve gotten it right.
Kind regards,
Laureen Kapin
Counsel for International Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
(202) 326-3237
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:47 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Rec. 19 (time sensitive)
Hi folks,
I’m forwarding proposed changes to Rec. 19 (Privacy Proxy) that the Rgr’s, Rgy’s (deferring to Rgr’s) and GAC have agreed to. As you’ll see below, we think these edits will improve the clarity of the Recommendation 19. For convenience, more context is provided in this email chain and I’m also including the revised text (changes highlighted) here below. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Proposed Revised text of Rec. 19:
Recommendation #19 Display of information of affiliated and accredited privacy/proxy providers
19.1 In the case of a domain name registration where an affiliated and accredited privacy/proxy service is used, e.g., where data associated with a natural person is masked, Registrar (and Registry, where applicable) MUST include the full RDDS data of the accredited applicable privacy/proxy service in response to an RDDS query. The full privacy/proxy RDDS data may also include a pseudonymized email.
Implementation notes:
19.2 Once ICANN org has implemented a privacy/proxy service accreditation program, this Recommendation 19 once in effect will replaces or otherwise supersedes EPDP phase 1 recommendation #14.
19.3 The intent of this recommendation is to provide clear instruction to registrars (and registries where applicable) that where a domain registration is done via an affiliated or accredited privacy/proxy provider, that data MUST NOT also be redacted. The working group is intending that domain registration data should MUST NOT be both redacted and privacy/proxied.
Kind regards,
Laureen Kapin
Counsel for International Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
(202) 326-3237
From: Kapin, Laureen
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 10:12 AM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; swyld at tucows.com<mailto:swyld at tucows.com>; 'alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca' <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>; King, Brian (Brian.King at markmonitor.com<mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>) <Brian.King at markmonitor.com<mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>>; Christopher.Lewis-Evans at nca.gov.uk<mailto:Christopher.Lewis-Evans at nca.gov.uk>; Anderson, Marc (mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>) <mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Subject: Rec. 19 (time sensitive)
Hi folks,
Rec. 19 seems like something we may be able to clarify and agree upon prior to submitting our consensus designations. I think the current wording of Rec. 19 is not clear in these ways:
1. The inconsistency between the title of the Rec. and the content (title references “affiliated” and content references “accredited”)
2. The open question of its applicability to both affiliated and accredited Privacy Proxy Service Providers
3. The indefinite “this” reference
This seems like something we should sort out before going to final publication. To that end, I’m proposing some clarifying revisions below. For context, I also include
1. the Category 2 comment by the GAC, joined by ALAC and BC and objected to by the Registrars and Registries;
2. the original Rec. 19 text
I welcome your input and hope we can resolve and improve this recommendation. Doing so will affect the GAC’s Consensus designations, so please let us know whether this is something we can resolve sooner rather than later. Thanks!
Category 2 proposed changes:
131. GAC / BC /ALAC
Rec. 19 Privacy/Proxy
2041-42
Display of information of affiliated privacy / proxy providers
Clarify ambiguity -- the phrase “once in effect” seems unclear and unnecessary. Also, does this language mean that Rec. 19 only goes into effect once the PPSAI implementation is complete?
Delete “once in effect” from the following: “Once ICANN org has implemented a privacy/proxy service accreditation program, this recommendation ‘once in effect’ replaces or otherwise supersedes EPDP phase 1 recommendation #14.” Also clarify timing of when this Rec. comes into play.
RrSG: Disagree with change. Recommendation 19 cannot possibly come into effect until after PPSAI is live, as Rec 19 relies on the existence of accredited P/P providers (which will not exist until after PPSAI is live).
ALAC: Title of Rec #19 still refers to AFFILIATED P/P providers, but the text of the first paragraph refers to accredited P/P services. Surely the intent of this Rec if to cover Affiliated P/P services now and Accredited ones once they exist.
RySG: Do Not Support
Current language Rec. 19:
[cid:image001.png at 01D664AF.95CCA700]
Proposed Revised text of Rec. 19:
Recommendation #19 Display of information of affiliated and accredited privacy/proxy providers
19.1 In the case of a domain name registration where an affiliated and accredited privacy/proxy service is used, e.g., where data associated with a natural person is masked,Registrar (and Registry, where applicable) MUST include the full RDDS data of the accredited applicable privacy/proxy service in response to an RDDS query. The full privacy/proxy RDDS data may also include a pseudonymized email.
Implementation notes:
19.2 Once ICANN org has implemented a privacy/proxy service accreditation program, this Recommendation 19 once in effect will replaces or otherwise supersedes EPDP phase 1 recommendation #14.
19.3 The intent of this recommendation is to provide clear instruction to registrars (and registries where applicable) that where a domain registration is done via an affiliated or accredited privacy/proxy provider, that data MUST NOT also be redacted. The working group is intending that domain registration data should MUST NOT be both redacted and privacy/proxied.
Kind regards,
Laureen Kapin
Counsel for International Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
(202) 326-3237
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Confidentiality note: This e-mail may contain confidential information from Clarivate. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200728/4d32cb6a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4440 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200728/4d32cb6a/image001-0001.jpg>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team
mailing list