[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology

Fri Dec 5 15:22:20 UTC 2014

Correct.  So all that ICANN Compliance could do is write to the PP service, which will in turn confirm that the email address published is accurate.  Absent giving ICANN access to the underlying customer data and convincing them to get in the business of confirming that underlying customer data (unlikely!/unwanted?), Luc's model doesn't seem to work.  

Best,
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:19 AM
To: Luc SEUFER; Steven J. Metalitz
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology

Luc,

It doesn't seem to me that you are referring to the typical privacy/proxy model. Services publish addresses that are owned by the p/p companies themselves and not ones, or aliases, that belong to service users.

Don 

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:48 AM
To: Steven J. Metalitz
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] @EXT RE: Continuing the discussion onhardbounces, and deciding on terminology

Hello Steve,

I do understand that. But it doesn’t matter as when the registrar will verify the email address registered in the whois it will de facto verify the  underlying one. So if the latter isn’t functioning the published one won’t be verified and the domain name deactivated.

If you take for example my own domain name for which I am using a poor man privacy service. The address I have published in the whois is junk at seufer.email<mailto:junk at seufer.email> which redirect to my actual email address. And as far as the registrar for my domain name is concerned, they verify the published address, they don’t care that it is forwarding to another one.

Luc

On 05 Dec 2014, at 15:22, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:

Luc, we are not talking here about the e-mail address published in Whois, but the one to which the p/p provider forwards the message that was sent to the e-mail address published in Whois.

Steve Metalitz

-----Original Message-----
From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer at dclgroup.eu]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Leaning, Richard
Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: @EXT RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hardbounces, and deciding on terminology

Hello Richard

Yes, the registrant is ultimately responsible for maintaining its details current. But in case they fail to - whatever the reason - a complaint can be lodged to ICANN via this form https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-form and the registrars in charge of the domain name will have to take reasonable steps to investigate and if applicable correct the inaccurate data.

The fact that the registrant details are those of the PP provider doesn’t matter. The obligations of the registrars stemming from the RAA are the same.

Best Wishes,

Luc

// Luc Seufer
Chief Legal Officer | EuroDNS

office: +352 26 37 25-166
mobile: +352 691 600 417
fax: +352 20 300 166
lseufer at eurodns.com<mailto:lseufer at eurodns.com><mailto:lseufer at eurodns.com> | www.eurodns.com<http://www.eurodns.com><http://www.eurodns.com>

2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange
Luxembourg

On 05 Dec 2014, at 11:01, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu>> wrote:

Richard Leaning
Cyber Community Engagement
European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3)
Europol

Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079
Office +31 70 3531630
Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu>

-----Original Message-----
From: Leaning, Richard
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:00 AM W. Europe Standard Time
To: 'Luc SEUFER'; 'Steven J. Metalitz'
Cc: 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>'
Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology

My understanding is that it's the registrant who is responsible to keep the WHOIS accurate, not the registrar. Which is the problem with the WHOIS. I know that's another conversation altogether.

Cheers

Dick

Richard Leaning
Cyber Community Engagement
European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3)
Europol

Mobile +44 (0) 7814744079
Office +31 70 3531630
Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu<mailto:Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu><mailto:Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu>

-----Original Message-----
From: Luc SEUFER [lseufer at dclgroup.eu<mailto:lseufer at dclgroup.eu><mailto:lseufer at dclgroup.eu>]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:15 AM W. Europe Standard Time
To: Steven J. Metalitz
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology

But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record.

It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-)

Luc

On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com><mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:

Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request.  That’s all that we are asking for here.

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology

Thanks very much, this is extremely useful.  As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear.  It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc.
Cheers Stephanie
On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:

Colleagues,

I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about.

As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.

There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here:

http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/

I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that.

-------------------------
Christian J. Dawson                             (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice
Chief Operations Officer, ServInt
www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/>         dawson at servint.com<mailto:dawson at servint.com>      (703)847-1383 Fax
-------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.