[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Fri May 23 10:23:45 UTC 2014

Steve (and Everyone)

I agree that member’s representation is not necessarily relevant here.  But to clarify the position I have expressed:  The ALAC  formally adopted the following points on release of the P/P specification:

The ALAC strongly supports amending the Privacy Proxy Specification such that:

It is applicable to all Privacy and Proxy providers.
The personal details of the beneficial user are verified in accordance with verification requirements in the 2013 RAA. The process should ensure that, at least when the information is collected, that the proposed beneficial user is a real person/organisation and that the contact details are those of the proposed beneficial user.
Limits on access to the personal information of the beneficial user must be clear and balance the legitimate privacy requirements of the beneficial user as against the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies and UDRP providers.
We did not - and do not - have concerns about whether the P/P beneficial user is a commercial entity or a person that uses the service for some/all commercial purposes.  Our concerns are about accreditation of the P/P (who does it, who checks, what penalties), the accuracy of the Whois data (when and how) and limits on access that respect privacy obligations - balanced against legitimate needs for access to that data.  There is a lot in that sentence that needs to be worked through but that is the baseline. 

I appreciate others have additional concerns, and those need to be worked through.  Identification that the registrant is a P/P provider may be of assistance in that regard and if that assists resolution of this issue, terrific.

I hope that clarifies both my position and the fact that the position is one that has gone through a formal ALAC vote.

Holly
(Member, Executive Team, ALAC)

On 23 May 2014, at 3:08 am, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:

> Kiran, I agree with your second sentence. I don't agree with the first because (a) in fact WG participants are not always representing the constituency or other group with which they identify and (b) as others have pointed out, there is only a very limited role for voting in WGs.
> 
> But getting back to the text that you and others proposed:
> 
> Could the proponents of the text identify the SG AC or C which they are representing in disagreeing with the position that use of p/p registrations for commercial activities should not be prohibited in accreditation standards?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kiran Malancharuvil [Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 08:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Cc: Libby Baney; Marika Konings; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
> 
> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.
> 
> K
> 
> Kiran Malancharuvil
> Internet Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415-419-9138 (m)
> 
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> 
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
> 
> Could you clarify one point:
> 
> “However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreed….”  Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
> 
> Steve
> 
> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney at fwdstrategies.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
> 
> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Libby
> 
> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
> 
>   1.  Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits?
>   2.  Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
>   3.  Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged.
>   4.  Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
> 
> Thanks to all participants on today’s call.  Following up on requests made on the call ----
> 
> Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits.  Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.
> 
> Regarding question C.3:  If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:
> 
> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)?  If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.
> 
> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Steve Metalitz, vice chair
> 
> 
> 
> 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] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014
> 
>   1.  Roll Call / SOI
>   2.  Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don)
>   3.  Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached)
>   4.  Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
>   5.  Next steps / confirm next meeting
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Libby Baney, JD
> President
> FWD Strategies International
> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com>
> P: 202-499-2296
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140523/d427a023/attachment.html>