The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 15 September 2015 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Proposed Agenda:
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Overview of possible revisions to Annex E- Illustrative Disclosure Framework (Sub Team 3)
- WG discussion of possible revisions to Annex E
- Call for identification of issues arising from Part 3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool
- Next steps
Documents for Review:
Sub Team 3 Revised Annex E - 14 Sept
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-15sep15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsai-15sep15-en.pdf
Attendees:
Todd Williams IPC
Sara Bockey RrSG
Roger Carney - RrSG
Frank Michlick Individual
Steve Metalitz – IPC
James Bladel RrSG
David Hughes - IPC
James Gannon NCUC
Alex Deacon - IPC
Luc Seufer RrSG
David Cake- NCSG
Carlton Samuels - At–Large
Graeme Bunton RrSG
Griffin Barnett - IPC
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Val Sherman IPC
Vicky Schlecker – IPC
Terri Stumme BC
Holly Raiche ALAC
Kathy Kleiman - NCSG
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG
Susan Kawaguchi – BC
Iranga Kahangama -
Apologies:
Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Michele Neylon - RrSG
Susan Prosser RrSG
Darcy Southwell – RrSG
Stephanie Perrin NCSG
Phil Corwin – BC
Sarah Wyld – RrSG
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Terri Agnew
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 15 September 2015
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference on Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Graeme Bunton:Grabbing a Tea, brb
Graeme Bunton:Tea'd.
James Bladel:Monster Rehab? My new favorite tea.
James Bladel:It wasn't "furious" it was only "brisk" and "purposeful."
Holly Raiche:What is Monster Rehab???
Graeme Bunton:I prefer boring, generic orange pekoe/english breakfast black tea
James Bladel:@Holly: Iced tea energy drink.
Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - me too. Not sure about 'energy' drinks
Frank Michlick:put yourhands up in the air
Frank Michlick:I like Rojbois tea
Frank Michlick:flavoured
Terri Agnew:Vicky Sheckler has joined
Mary Wong:Apologies, we can't show Word doc comments in PDF in AC :( So, yes, Todd, if you can point them out as you go along, that would be helpful.
Mary Wong:But the comment "balloons" will show if you open the Word doc that was sent yesteday.
David Cake:I'm an Early Grey tea guy mostly. I have a cup right now.
Holly Raiche:I love the concept of "Early" tea
Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:James Gannon and Susan Kawaguchi have joined
James Gannon:Apologies for my tardyness
Mary Wong:That was a comment made as part of this individual's response to the WG's online template question for this recommendation. I don't believe any further details or explanation was provided.
Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the call
James Bladel:So "frivolous" or "harassing." Got it. :)
Sara Bockey:+1 @Holly
Mary Wong:Some common law jurisdictions will use the phrase "frivolous or vexatious" rather than "harassing" (which may be more of a US-centric word).
David Cake:I'm ok with the frivolous and vexatious language. Familiar in common law jurisdictions as Mary says.
Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - My guess is that we'll have to put verifiable on issues to get back to
steve metalitz:@Holly, agree, and as Todd noted, if other criteria need to be added to the template to fulfill "verifiable evidence" standard, it would be timely to bring them forward.
Holly Raiche:@ Steve - it's on our list to do - and come back with some suggestions
James Gannon:Happy with that
Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined
Carlton Samuels:Howdy all
James Bladel:jees
Carlton Samuels:My apologies. Multitasking again
Holly Raiche:Hi Carlton
Frank Michlick:too loud
James Bladel:step back from mic, pls.
Carlton Samuels:Hey Holly, I hope you shed a tear.
Carlton Samuels::-)
Holly Raiche:That was my question
James Bladel:will defer to James G., the booming voice of God.
val s.::)
James Gannon:Sorry for booming voices, on a bad mic today
James Bladel:How could you reach that conclusion without retaining the data from the first incident?
Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ metalitz. We often see several indicators that the same actor/s are behind multiple sites engaged in similar styles of infrining activity
steve metalitz:@James G, not a leap to try to ensure the information obtained is useful for the purpose for which obtained. As in my scenario, sometimes this involves retention .
James Gannon:That would have to be addressed in a different framework as this is only for IP infringement reuqests
James Bladel:at this point, they are alleged to be a "bad actor". But still a private dispute between two parties.
steve metalitz:+1 to James G. re susan's example. This Annex is just for IPR claims. We anticipate that there would be different templates/ground rules for different kinds of complaints.
Luc Seufer:@Steve I have thought about it, but I fail to see other templates/ground requiring a specific template.
Carlton Samuels:IAt what point does the allegation cease to be a private dispute between parties and a trespass on the domain name system?
Luc Seufer:I trust any other type of dispute would follow due process
James Bladel:In the interests of moving this call forward, I'll drop from the queue.
steve metalitz:@ Luc -- security/malware etc.?
Susan kawaguchi:most of the malicious use also includes the use of our intellectual property so I am not seeing a distinction
Luc Seufer:they wouldn't contact the PP provider I suppose, they would go to the hosting or IS provider
Susan kawaguchi:we use registrant information all the time to connect domain names for security issues
Mary Wong:Graeme?
Graeme Bunton:Here?
Graeme Bunton:weird!
Graeme Bunton:will re join room
Frank Michlick:can't hear you
James Gannon:I out him to sleep
Graeme Bunton:Yes, thanks Steve
Luc Seufer:morse code now?
Mary Wong:FYI we're now on Section III - Service Provider Action on Request
James Gannon:PGP Encrypted Email wouldnt be a heavy ask in my opinon
James Bladel:@James - it is a huge ask.
Luc Seufer:@JamesG I still see law firms trying to send us 100meg UDRP complaint via email
Alex Deacon:maybe one day we will have email key management via DNS a la DANE/DNSSEC :)
Luc Seufer:and complaining it was rejected by our email system
James Gannon:For clarity our request was only for the tranmission of the final contact details.
Vicky Sheckler:re: III.B., once a valid request has been made that meets the requirements, S.P. should be obligated to provide the information.
Vicky Sheckler:or say no and why, as Steve M is saying
James Bladel:I'm on board with Steve's comment, especially if can swap (i) and (ii).
Luc Seufer:Agreed too
Alex Deacon:Agree. the "encouraged but not required to" guts this whole annex.
James Bladel:@JamesG - but we do have flexibility, under (ii).
Mary Wong:@James B, what do you mean by swap (i) & (ii)?
steve metalitz:@ James G so you think after all this the service provider shoudl not have to respond yes or no to disclosure request?
Alex Deacon:I don't believe we have ever considered an automatic disclosure process.
Vicky Sheckler:think III.B. (i) and (ii) should stay in order they are in now
James Gannon:@Steve: Persoanlly I can live with it, looking at the public comments looking for the removal of Annex E in its entirety I would have concerns.
James Bladel:they can be merged
Mary Wong:Per Steve M, the WG had previously decided not to mandate that a provider must allow the surrender option, since current practices is that some do offer it and some do not.
James Bladel:surrender = deletion. Anything else would be an operational burden for providers & registrars.
James Gannon:+1 James
Holly Raiche:2 James B - agree with interpretation
Mary Wong:Yes - the intent was not to mean transfer.
Luc Seufer:so why not replace surrender by deletion?
Alex Deacon:I'd like to see the merged text before I can commenet/agree.
James Gannon:+1 Alex
Mary Wong:@Luc, I think the original idea was to reflect the customer's choice to give up the service
Holly Raiche:@ luc - fine with suggestion
Luc Seufer:but the text says the domain name, not the service (i.e. removing the proxy)
James Gannon:Great work, definintley food for tought on a critical aspect
James Gannon:And I appreacite the groups from both sides of the field working together
Mary Wong:@Luc, probably we can rephrase to the effect of "customer electing to give up its domain name registration, resulting in a deletion" or something like that.
Luc Seufer:customer electing to have their domain name deleted.
Luc Seufer:would be clearer IMO
Mary Wong:OK thanks - we'll take that back to the sub team!
Luc Seufer:thank you Mary
James Gannon:Thanks all
James Bladel:Thanks folks.
val s.:thanks all
Luc Seufer:thanks, bye all
