[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability

Tue Aug 19 20:29:59 UTC 2014

Hello Griffin and everyone,

The terms used to describe ³Reveal² in prior GNSO work on Whois and referred
to in the document Griffin mentions were as follows:

THE GNSO¹S TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PROPOSED PRIVACY/PROXY RELAY/REVEAL STUDY
(SEPTEMBER 2010: 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-privacy-relay-reveal-studies-
tor-29sep10-en.pdf)
* For many domains (including those registered via Privacy services), the
Registered Name Holder's identity is published directly in WHOIS. However,
for domains registered via Proxy services, the name of the licensee is not
published in WHOIS; third party licensees can typically only be identified
by asking the Proxy to reveal the licensee's identity, given reasonable
evidence of actionable harm
THE RELAY & REVEAL PRE-FEASIBILITY SURVEY REPORT (INTERISLE CONSULTING;
AUGUST 2012: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-final-report-22aug12-e
n.pdf)
* For Reveal Handling - For many domains (including those registered via
Privacy services), the Registered Name Holder¹s identity is published
directly in WHOIS. However, for domains registered via Proxy services, the
name of the licensee is not published in WHOIS; third party licensees can
typically be identified only by asking the Proxy to reveal the licensee¹s
identity. 
Note that these are not ³definitions² as the word is commonly understood.
The Whois Review Team referred to the GNSO¹s Whois studies in its Final
Report but did not define it further.

As Griffin also highlights, this WG did discuss the terminology surrounding
³Reveal² in its early discussions about grouping the Charter questions.
Having reviewed the transcripts for some of those meetings, I can confirm
that the WG discussed the distinction between the ³publication² of contact
details/identity in Whois and the ³disclosure² of those contact
details/identity to another person. In relation to the proposed Publication
category for the final grouping of Charter questions, some WG member were of
the opinion that instead of creating a separate category that risked the WG
further expanding its scope of work, the topic could generally be covered by
discussions related to Reveal, including the consequences of terminating a
proxy customer¹s service

As such, this WG might wish to develop working definitions for certain terms
associated with the various acts that have hitherto been generally described
as a Reveal  for instance, ³publication² could mean the disclosure of a
person¹s (I.e. the licensee or beneficial owner) identity/contact details in
the Whois system, whereas ³reveal² could mean the disclosure of that
person¹s identity/contact details to a third party requestor.

I hope this is helpful.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

From:  "GBarnett at sgbdc.com" <GBarnett at sgbdc.com>
Date:  Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM
To:  Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>,
"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability

> All,
> 
> Regarding our discussion toward the end of today's call concerning
> differentiating between a limited disclosure or reveal of registrant identity
> to a particular third party versus revealing or publishing the registrant
> identity in the Whois: I was looking back at some early drafts of our Work
> Plan, and we had proposed making "Reveal" and "Publication" distinct and
> separate categories (in our draft, they would have been Category F, Reveal,
> and Category G, Publication; see the attached draft from back in January).
> 
> For whatever reason, this proposal was not adopted into our final Work Plan,
> which only contains the single "Reveal" category (Category F) (re-attaching
> the final version here for ease of reference).  The footnote in the Work Plan
> (Footnote 8) points to the definition of "Reveal" as it is defined in the
> "GNSO¹s Terms of Reference for Whois studies," which I am having trouble
> locating.  Can someone locate this particular definition and share with the
> group? It may help us establish the terms we will use moving forward to refer
> to the disclosure of registrant identity to a particular third party (which in
> my mind is a "Reveal") versus the placement of the registrant identity/contact
> info in the Whois, thereby replacing the Privacy/Proxy information (which in
> my mind is a "Publication").  I agree that distinguishing between these types
> of actions is critical.
> 
> Hope this is helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Griffin
> 
> Griffin M. Barnett
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
> 1101 30th Street NW
> Suite 120
> Washington, DC 20007
> (202) 944-3307
> gbarnett at sgbdc.com
> 
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Don Blumenthal
> [dblumenthal at pir.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:28 PM
> To: Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability
> 
> Thanks, Mary.
> 
> These documents are for reference for now. We will start the call around on
> the thread related to Volker¹s proposal since it covers so many of the issues.
> The initial focus will be on email relay questions.
> 
> Thanks to Volker for raising a concrete framework for discussion and to those
> who carried the conversation forward since last Tuesday. Email discussion and
> mid-week drafting are critical if we plan to stay close to our schedule.
> 
> Talk to you tomorrow.
> 
> Don
> 
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Date: Monday, August 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM
> To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> To aid in further discussions on the points several WG members have raised in
> response to Volker¹s proposal, the WG Chairs have requested that staff
> circulate an updated Category E summary document, containing the fundamental
> questions currently being discussed on this list and the WG calls on
> Relay/Reveal. Essentially the attached is an update of the summary document
> previously circulated on E-1. Attached also are the most recent E-1 and E-2
> templates.
> 
> In light of the ongoing list discussion, the proposed agenda for the meeting
> on Tuesday 19 August is therefore:
> 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOIs
> 2. Finalize discussions on Category E
> 3. Next steps
> We will have all the attached documents and Volker¹s proposal on hand in the
> Adobe Connect room for the meeting.
> 
> Please continue to circulate your suggestions, questions and comments on any
> of these to the list prior to the call!
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> From: <Williams>, Todd <Todd.Williams at turner.com>
> Date: Monday, August 18, 2014 at 11:19 AM
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability
> 
>> Thanks James.  Quick question: if, as you note, most of your P/P customers
>> engage the service to avoid being spammed  why is that objective/purpose not
>> sufficiently protected by a standard that says ³A provider must relay all
>> electronic requests received (including emails and via web forms), but may
>> implement commercially reasonable safeguards (including CAPTCHA) to filter
>> out spam.²?
>>  
>> By asking the question I don¹t necessarily mean to make a judgment on your
>> ³access whitelist² idea.  I¹m just not sure I understand its utility on this
>> specific question (relay), where a means to address the problem that it is
>> trying to solve (i.e., spam) appears to have already been baked in.
>>  
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> TW. 
>>  
>> 
>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
>> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:23 PM
>> To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks to Volker for getting this conversation started.  I also share the
>> belief that we should define a system that assures reporters their claims
>> will be relayed by P/P services.  However, I disagree on some key points
>> raised by Volker and others.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> First, I do not believe there should be any attempt to filter submitted
>> reports based on content.  That approach does not scale, and simply results
>> in an arms race where would-be spammers attempt to circumvent the filters.
>> Also, I do not believe P/P services should relay ‹all‹reports.  This treats
>> the P/P email point of contact as an email ³alias² for the beneficial user¹s
>> real address, and completely defeats the purpose of the service (most of our
>> P/P customers engage the service to avoid being spammed).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I favor an approach that is modeled after ICANN¹s Invalid WHOIS Reporting
>> System, and one that many Registrars have implemented to guard against WHOIS
>> harvesting  an access whitelist.  Speaking generally, such a system would
>> require reporters to identify themselves when submitting a claim for relay.
>> Is reporter should also have to designate the email address from which relay
>> claims will originate, and the service provider agrees to honor relay request
>> from that Address without discriminating on its content.  The P/P service
>> provider can then monitor the use of the relay system by each reporter, and
>> suspend or terminate access for any reporter that is found to be abusing the
>> system.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> If this sounds familiar, it is blatantly copied from the EWG's proposed RDS
>> concept. I think this idea has merit, and regardless of what happens to the
>> rest of the EWG's recommendations, we should consider opportunities to
>> implement this proposal in existing contexts.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Look forward to continuing our discussions on this point on Tuesday.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks‹
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 4:27
>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As Susan and Steve have repeatedly asked what my proposal would be to ensure
>> contactability of the beneficial owner/registrant.
>> 
>> As a basis, a spec derivative of the WAP spec to the RAA would have to be
>> developed. I took the liberty of modifying the WAP for this purpose as a
>> basis for discussion.
>> This would bring the obligation of the privacy service provider to validate
>> and verify the contact details to the same level of that of the registrar,
>> thus ensuring the Service Provider has either accurate details or a duty to
>> verify and validate.
>> 
>> Now, I would agree that some level of a contactibility guarantee is
>> warranted. This could be something to this tune, as a basis for discussion:
>> 
>> "Service Provider are required provide a means for third parties to directly
>> or indirectly communicate with the Beneficial Owner. Such means may include
>> any of the following:
>> a) providing a postal mail forwarding address
>> b) providing a collective email point of contact for all domain names under
>> the Service (such as abuse at service.provider)
>> c) providing an individual email point of contact for each domain name under
>> the Service (such as string at domain.name or domain.name at service.provider)
>> ...
>> ...
>> 
>> Service Provider must inform potential complainants about the accepted means
>> of communication on its website. Service provider may refuse to forward,
>> process or even accept communications sent by a non-accepted means of
>> communication. In case forwarding of postal communications is offered,
>> Service Provider may charge complainant reasonable handling fees and costs
>> for the forwarding service and defer the forwarding of communications until
>> payment is received.
>> 
>> Service Provider may refuse to forward spam, duplicate messages, purchase or
>> business inquiries, harrassing communications, anonymous communications
>> and/or unwanted communications. Service Provider is authorized to update or
>> modify the means of communication from time to time. Service Provider is
>> authorized to blacklist complainants with a history of abusing the provided
>> means of communication."
>> 
>> All subject to further discussion, ofc.
>> 
>> I realize this draft goes into detail more than we should in this WG, but
>> having been asked for a proposal, I felt it necessary in order to move the
>> discussion ahead.
>> Terms:
>> Service Provider - Privacy/Proxy Service Provider
>> Beneficial Owner - Replaces "Registrant"
>> filter - not deliver to Beneficial owner
>> Service - the privacy/proxy services
>> 
>> -- 
>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>>  
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>  
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>>  
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>  
>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net>  / www.RRPproxy.net
>> <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com
>> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  / www.BrandShelter.com
>> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>  
>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>  
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>  
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>>  
>> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
>> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
>> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
>> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
>> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>  
>> --------------------------------------------
>>  
>> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - legal department -
>>  
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>  
>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net>  / www.RRPproxy.net
>> <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com
>> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  / www.BrandShelter.com
>> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>  
>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>  
>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>  
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>>  
>> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
>> addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
>> email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
>> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify
>> the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>>  
>>  
>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140819/718cc592/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140819/718cc592/smime-0001.p7s>