[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
gtheo
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Tue Dec 1 12:02:08 UTC 2015
Agreed Roger,
That basically boils down my observation during the IRT sessions.
Turning a privacy service on or off in the whois not being a material
change and as such not applicable.
Thanks,
Theo
Roger D Carney schreef op 2015-12-01 12:10 AM:
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Going back to comments that Volker, James and Theo made a couple weeks
> ago regarding the 60-day lock, I don't recall seeing a
> resolution/reconciliation of staff interpretation and comments on the
> mailing list. Staff states that their interpretation of IRTP-C
> indicates that the removal of the P/P service is a registrant change,
> whereas several commenters did not interpret the same way.
>
> In reading the P/P report it seems like the definition of the P/P
> service provider is not aligned with the staff interpretation of how
> IRTP-C relates to the P/P recommendations, specifically in regards to
> the 60-day lock requirements for change of Registered Name Holder. In
> the P/P Report the definition of "Privacy Service" states "…a
> Registered Name is registered to its beneficial user as the Registered
> Name Holder, but for which alternative, reliable contact information
> is provided by the privacy or proxy service provider for display of
> the Registered Name Holder's contact information in the Registration
> Data Service (WHOIS) or equivalent services." The way I interpret this
> text is that the Registered Name Holder is not changing when
> adding/removing a P/P service, and only this "alternative, reliable
> contact information", the publicly visual data is being changed.
>
> In reference to the proposed "de-accreditation" text proposed below in
> Mary's email, I am not sure this is needed either if you agree that
> the policy already has defined a change from/to P/P service as
> non-registrant changing.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>
> FROM: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Mary Wong
> SENT: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:05 PM
> TO: James M. Bladel; Mike Zupke; Metalitz, Steven; Volker Greimann;
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org; Amy Bivins
> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with
> the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions -
> it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe
> that James is referring to the registrar's discretion in determining
> whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see
> in particular the words I've highlighted in bold and italics). This is
> illustrated by the examples given:
>
> "Material Change" _MEANS A NON-TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTION_. The
> following will be considered material changes:
>
> (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization
> that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction;
>
> (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or
> organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone
> number;
>
> (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address.
>
> The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant
> because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant's name,
> organizational address or email address will be considered a Change of
> Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence, disabling/removal
> of a proxy service would trigger a lock - although the current Policy
> contemplates another possible instance of registrar discretion in such
> instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion ("may") to permit the
> Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock prior to the Change of
> Registrant request.
>
> I'm far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to
> explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where,
> in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to
> de-accreditation - _"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under
> the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a
> proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day
> lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the
> registrar has also been notified of the de-accreditation of the proxy
> service provider"_.
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
>
> Senior Policy Director
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
> FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "James M.
> Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> DATE: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24
> TO: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke at icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>,
> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>, Amy
> Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org>
> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>
>> Hi folks. Just responding to Mike's post from last Wednesday:
>>
>> The question of P/P services triggering the "Change of Registrant"
>> policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It was,
>> however, the subject of extensive discussion by the Implementation
>> team, which ultimately determined that Registrar's should have the
>> discretion to determine whether or not this qualified as a Change of
>> Registrant. For example, a Registrar may determine that
>> adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT trigger the
>> change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated P/P service
>> contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a 60-day
>> transfer lock may be warranted.
>>
>> There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility is
>> needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an aftermarket
>> sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or payment failures
>> for the P/P service, or termination due to a violation of the P/P
>> services terms. I would also caution against recommendations of any
>> particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse recommendations or
>> Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C) even before they have
>> been adopted.
>>
>> I don't think this should materially affect the overall
>> recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with
>> this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on
>> our next call.
>>
>> Thanks--
>>
>> J.
>>
>> FROM: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke at icann.org>
>> DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10
>> TO: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Volker Greimann
>> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>,
>> PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>, Amy Bivins
>> <amy.bivins at icann.org>
>> SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>>
>> Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few
>> others.
>>
>> In answer to Steve's question ("Could you clarify whether the 60-day
>> lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy, or part of
>> the implementation of that policy?"), the lock was included in the
>> policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were adopted by the
>> Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy or proxy
>> services in that part of the recommendation. So our implementation
>> of the IRTP C recommendations was done "to the letter" of the
>> recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception was made for
>> privacy and proxy services.
>>
>> We don't believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded
>> from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP
>> registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the
>> Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3
>> (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg [8]) spoke to having the
>> WG "[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should
>> apply."
>>
>> With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the
>> IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or
>> the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service in
>> a world where consent of the other party would now be required in
>> order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that question
>> was to allow use of "designated agents" (see
>>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
>> [9] at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don't believe the
>> matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was raised
>> by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall occasionally
>> that people would reference the work of this WG as potentially being
>> necessary to addressing interaction with accredited PP service
>> registrations and the Transfer Policy.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> Mike Zupke
>>
>> Director, Registrar Services
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>
>> 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: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM
>> TO: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>;
>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>>
>> Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the
>> IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
>>
>> Thanks-
>>
>> J.
>>
>> FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker
>> Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>> DATE: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22
>> TO: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>>
>> In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should
>> not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner change.
>> I am therefore in favor of option 2)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Volker
>>
>> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
>>
>>> Dear PPSAI WG Members:
>>>
>>> Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today. This
>>> came to our attention after reflecting on the work done Friday by
>>> the "implementation issues" sub-team.
>>>
>>> In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger the
>>> 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C (which
>>> takes effect on 1 August 2016,
>>>
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en
>>> ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular
>>> concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy service
>>> (if transfer to another registrar is required to maintain
>>> privacy).
>>>
>>> Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
>>>
>>> 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in
>>> place.
>>> 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service customers, so
>>> the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock doesn't apply
>>> when/if the customer changes or removes the PP service.
>>> 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is
>>> de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock can
>>> be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been
>>> notified of de-accreditation.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if you'd like to us to provide any further
>>> background.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> AMY E. BIVINS
>>>
>>> Registrar Policy Services Manager
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>> amy.bivins at icann.org
>>>
>>> _ONE WORLD. ONE INTERNET._
>>>
>>> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
>>>
>>> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
>>>
>>> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400
>>>
>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 [1] / www.RRPproxy.net
>> [2]www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
>>
>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5]www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
>>
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>
>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>
>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>
>> www.keydrive.lu [7]
>>
>> 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 [1] / www.RRPproxy.net
>> [2]www.domaindiscount24.com [3] / www.BrandShelter.com [4]
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
>> updated:
>>
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems [5]www.twitter.com/key_systems [6]
>>
>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>>
>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>
>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>
>> www.keydrive.lu [7]
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.key-systems.net
> [2] http://www.RRPproxy.net
> [3] http://www.domaindiscount24.com
> [4] http://www.BrandShelter.com
> [5] http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> [6] http://www.twitter.com/key_systems
> [7] http://www.keydrive.lu
> [8] https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg
> [9]
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list