[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] definitions section

Tue Dec 1 23:15:50 UTC 2015

Steve,

The point was timing of "knowingly" with respect to a registration from a non accredited P/P provider. "At the time" was meant to eliminate an obligation on the registrar to refuse subsequent registrations from the provider. I was concerned that it might not work unless someone went through the same mental process that I did to distill my original idea for addressing the issue into something manageable. I guess I was correct.

Don

On 12/1/2015 5:58:24 PM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:
Not sure I get this Don, when else would a registrar accept a registration other than at the time it is submitted?

From: Don M. Blumenthal [mailto:dmb at donblumenthal.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:19 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; James M. Bladel
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] definitions section

I suggested in the attached file "at the time that the registration is submitted" at the end of the first sentence to address point 2. James, or others, does that meet the concerns? I tried to be more descriptive but the language became cumbersome.

Don

On 12/1/2015 3:47:41 PM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com [mailto:met at msk.com]> wrote:
Thanks James.  Since at this juncture we need actual language, not just points, I have modified my proposal’s footnote 1 to reference the “implementation guidance” you suggest in (1) below. See attached.   Do you have any language to suggest on your point (2)?

Steve

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:06 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] definitions section

Thanks for launching this thread, Steve.  I know time is short so I'll just weigh in with two quick points:

(1)  I believe we planned to include a footnote with Implementation Guidance that "knowingly" in this context meant "active knowledge" on the part of the Registrar, via a report received from ICANN or elsewhere, and not in reference to any mandatory "black list" of prohibited registrants that would be checked prior to issuing any registrations, and

(2) I am still concerned that this allows Registrars (or ICANN Staff) to interpret the requirement to mean that becoming aware of law firms or web hosts acting on behalf of customers unknown to the Registrar (e.g. implementing a UDRP decision) would require the Registrar to block future registrations from that entity.  Granted, it would not be in a Registrar's best interests to act against its own customers in this manner, but some might choose (or feel pressured by Compliance) to do so.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

On Dec 1, 2015, at 10:36, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com [mailto:met at msk.com]> wrote:
PPSAI WG,

Per request on this morning’s call, attached is a redline of the passage from the “Definitions” section of the recommendations (page 7 of the clean version circulated by Mary).  This is the proposal I asked James to consider accepting. I think this proposal minimizes the risk of conflict between our recommendations and the RAA.  Per Graeme’s request on the call, any feedback welcomed today.   Thanks!

Steve Metalitz

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 Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:30 PM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org]
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps

Hello everyone,

Forwarding Vicky’s message (below), which does not seem to have made it to the list.

From: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com [mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com]>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 16:02
To: "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]>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]>
Cc: "Steven J. Metalitz (met at msk.com [mailto:met at msk.com])" <met at msk.com [mailto:met at msk.com]>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations, and next steps

In reviewing the recommendations on p.7, it seems to me that the third sentence of the section copied below is overbroad and unnecessary for the purpose here. 

o        “Registrars are not to knowingly accept registrations from privacy or proxy service providers who are not accredited through the process developed by ICANN. For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply[1] [#_ftn1]. In this regard, the WG notes that the consequence of this recommendation is that an accredited privacy or proxy service provider that is in good standing with ICANN will therefore not be liable for the actions of their customers. Similarly, an individual or entity that is acting as a privacy or proxy service, but that is not accredited by ICANN or not in good standing, will be considered the registrant of record, and thus responsible for the domain name registration in question.”

It is not our place to say whether an accredited p/p provider is or is not liable for the actions of its customers.  While one would think that in most cases, the accredited p/p provider would not be, I can envision scenarios where the p/p provider would be liable.   Given this, either the last two sentences of the section above should be deleted (as the second sentence I think captures the rule for non-accredited entities acting as a p/p service) or the section should be revised to read as follows:

o        “Registrars are not to knowingly accept registrations from privacy or proxy service providers who are not accredited through the process developed by ICANN. For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply[2] [#_ftn2]. In this regard, the WG notes that an individual or entity that is acting as a privacy or proxy service, but that is not accredited by ICANN or not in good standing, will be considered the registrant of record.”

MARY – since my posts don’t always make it to the entire list, can I ask that you please forward it on if it looks like it didn’t go through?  Thanks! - Vicky

<DRAFT language (7262652).docx>
_______________________________________________
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 [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]

[1] [#_ftnref1] Section 3.7.7.3 of the 2013 RAA reads as follows: “Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name.”
[2] [#_ftnref2] Section 3.7.7.3 of the 2013 RAA reads as follows: “Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20151201/b48fade3/attachment-0001.html>