[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015

[Mary Wong]

Dear WG members,

The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as follows;
please also note the additional information/suggestions that follow.
1. Roll call/updates to SOI
2. Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework
intended for public comment ­ Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached)
3. Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report ­ see
below
4. Next steps/next meeting ­ including circulation of final draft Initial
Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and publication date
for public comment
The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was
circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes: (1)
the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of authorization (as
noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April document); and (2) for
clarity, the retention of ³square brackets² only with reference to language
that still reflects two or more options (since the entire document will be
open for public comment in any case).

For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions from
the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29 January
2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion at
the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the suggested answers
below for discussion/agreement/other comments. Graeme and Steve¹s
suggestions are highlighted in blue, with references to the context for
these remaining questions (as page numbers from the draft Report) following
in bold and underlined. The actual phrasing of each question can be found in
Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary of the draft Report as well.


Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P
Providers:
* The standard for maintaining a P/P provider¹s designated point of contact:
- the person or team must be ³capable and authorized² (per the Transfer
Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the IRTP
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en> ) (see pages
50-51 of the draft Initial Report)
* The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an abuse
report is made to the designated point of contact ­ while the requirement
under Section 3.18.1 of the 2013 RAA
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>
(³taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond²) had been
suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has been superseded by
the WG¹s specific recommendations on Relay and Disclosure (pages 51-52)
* To ensure provider contactability  ­ P/P providers should be required to
publish contact information on their website, modelled after Section 2.3 of
the interim Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri
vacy-proxy>  in the 2013 RAA (pages 51-52)
 
On Escalation of Relay Requests:
* On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the
event of persistent delivery failure of electronic communications ­ retain
current language in draft Initial Report (including bracketed options) for
public comment.
> The current draft language reads as follows:
>> "While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider¹s obligation to act
>> in the event it becomes aware of a persistent delivery failure, the WG has
>> yet to agree on obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by
>> a requestor. The following is the current language under consideration by the
>> WG, with the options included in square brackets:
> ³As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned requirements
> concerning a persistent delivery failure of an electronic communication have
> been met, the provider [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of
> notice to its customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the
> most appropriate means of forwarding such a request  [and to charge a
> reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee is to be
> borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider shall have the right
> to impose reasonable limits on the number of such requests made by the same
> requestor.²² (pages 53-54)

Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of the
WG¹s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and publish in
its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a customer¹s contact
details will be Published due to the customer¹s breach of one or more of the
Terms of Service. While this is not a Charter-based question, WG members are
encouraged ­ when they come to review the final draft Initial Report ­ to
consider this question and provide additional feedback if necessary.

Thanks and 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150420/9999f890/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Disclosure Text - FINAL DRAFT - 20 Apr 2015.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 56808 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150420/9999f890/DraftDisclosureText-FINALDRAFT-20Apr2015-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Updated Annex 1 - 16 Apr 2015.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150420/9999f890/UpdatedAnnex1-16Apr2015-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT WG Initial Report - updated 29 Jan 2015.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 471552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150420/9999f890/DRAFTWGInitialReport-updated29Jan2015-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150420/9999f890/smime-0001.p7s>