[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue

Tue Dec 1 12:45:45 UTC 2015

Depends: If it is our own service, then yes, it is immaterial. If 
however it is an unaffiliated service, I would consider the change 
material. So I agree with the supposition that it is the prerogative of 
the registrar to determine what is and what isn't material when it comes 
to any update.

Volker

Am 01.12.2015 um 13:02 schrieb gtheo:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://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 / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

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 / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

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.