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

Fri Dec 5 15:39:39 UTC 2014

Right. 

So if this is the case then its important that the "affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address” (or whatever we decide to call it) is returned by the P/P service to the original sender.  Without this no WHOIS inaccuracy compliance process can take place.  

Alex

> On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
> 
> We've already dealt with this scenario with ICANN Compliance.
> 
> If the published email in whois leads to a bounced email we have to investigate it and fix it.
> The issue could be with the forwarding system or the receiving email on the far end - it doesn't matter which one it is. The obligation is the same
> 
> So I agree with Luc
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.blacknight.press/ 
> http://www.technology.ie/ 
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:22 PM
> To: Don Blumenthal; 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
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg