The next meeting of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group will take place on Tuesday 17 December 2013 at 1500 UTC (07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET). For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/pqsxuat
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll Call/SOI
- Review draft Mind Map: "brainstorm" to categorize/group and prioritize Charter questions
- Next steps and development of Work Plan
- Next meeting: agree on set dates and times going forward
Documents for Review: Draft Mind Map (as of 10 December 2013)
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20131217-en.mp3
Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-17dec13-en.pdf
Attendees:
James Bladel - RrSG
Amr Elsadr - NCUC
Alex Deacon – IPC
Don Blumenthal - RySG
Gordon Dick - RrSG
Graeme Bunton - RrSG
Kristina Rosette - IPC
Luc Seufer - RrSG
Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Michele Neylon - RrSG
Roy Balleste - NCUC
Tim Ruiz - RrSG
Todd Williams - IPC
Volker Greimann - RrSG
Carlton Samuels - At-Large
Stephanie Perrin - NCUC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Tatiana Khramstova – RrSG
Justin Macy – CBUC
Kathy Kleiman – RySG
Emily Emanuel – CBUC
John Horton – CBUC
Keith Kupfershmid – IPC
Theo Geurts – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Phil Marano – IPC
Gema Campillos - GAC
Val Sherman – SOI to be completed
Nic Steinbach - RrSG
David Hughes – SOI to be completed
Maria Farrell - NCUC
Tobias Sattler – RrSG
Apologies:
Holly Raiche - ALAC
Statton Hammock – RrSG
Eric Brunner-Williams – Individual
Olga Cavalli - GAC
ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Mary Wong
Margie Milam
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 17 December 2013:
Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG meeting of 17 December 2013
Graeme Bunton:Marika, did Don make it in?
Graeme Bunton:also, room is muted
Marika Konings:@Graeme - yes, we spoke to Don briefly but I think he is about to get on a plane.
Nathalie Peregrine:Microphones are now enabled in the AC room
Nathalie Peregrine:In order to activate your microphones, if you would rather not dial into the audio bridge, please click on the telephone icon at the top of the toolbar and follow instructions from there. Please remember to mute the microphone however once this is done to avoid background noise, thank you!
Carlton Samuels:Morning All
Luc Seufer:Afternoon ;-)
Marika Konings:Don Blumenthal had to disconnected as he needed to catch a flight
Amr Elsadr:Just dialled in. Hi.
Kathy Kleiman:Hi All!
Graeme Bunton:Thanks Mary
Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa and Phil Marano have joined the call
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late
Nathalie Peregrine:As well as Michele Meylon
Michele Neylon:and me
Michele Neylon:/me hops up and down
Nathalie Peregrine:Noted, noted, noted, Michele.
Michele Neylon:Nathalie - it was more for Margie :)
Phil Marano:Hi Nathalie. I just dialed in, on adobe as well.
Nathalie Peregrine:thank you Phil, noted also
Nathalie Peregrine:Gema Campillos has joined the audio bridge
Kathy Kleiman:Should the WG agree on the questions proposed?
Margie Milam:Michele is on the EWG too
Nathalie Peregrine:Volker Greimann has joined the AC room
Nathalie Peregrine:Kristina Rosette has joined the AC room
Kathy Kleiman:No, to clarify, should the WG come to come agreement before adding a question or two? or can people individually add questions to the survey?
Carlton Samuels:@Tim: It comes from the idea of rebranding as Shield Services
Mary Wong:Thanks, Kathy - sorry if I misunderstood. I'd suggest sharing potential questions among the WG to agree on, both today and on the mailing list after, prior to suggesting them to the EWG to avoid duplication or confusion. Will that work?
Kristina Rosette:I have a clarifying question: Are we talking about a survey (in the true sense of the word) or a poll?
Kathy Kleiman:Agreed, Mary
Bladel:Just my opinion, but I think the term "shield serivce" isnt helping. Recommend we clarify the distinction between Privacy and Proxy and stick with those terms. Thanks.
Luc Seufer:Agreed with Bladel.
Tim Ruiz:I do like the use of the term regulator/regulation. It is an honest approach of what is being done here.
Carlton Samuels:@Format: Yes, to reformatting for ease of response.
Tim Ruiz:No, it's been called Proxy, which is more correct than Shield based on how it works.
Kathy Kleiman:Why does the EWG need this type of detail, and isn't a lot of this covered in the existing p/p studies commissioned by the GNSO?
Bladel:Protection from unsolicited survey invitations is part of the value of these services. :)
Amr Elsadr:@Tim: It's shield and proxy services vs. privacy and proxy services. :)
Kathy Kleiman:If my questions could be shared with the group since I am off audio, I would appreciate it. Tx you!
Carlton Samuels:@Tim: The idea of using the term Shield in terms of the EWG and the direction of RDS is to look at results of the effort
Michele Neylon:@Margie - oi!
Michele Neylon:@margie - you might want to have mentioned this to me :)
Margie Milam::)
Bladel:or no registrar
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes. Process and Procedure is VERY important to accreditation. So every and all existing procedure is grist for the mill
Michele Neylon:@Steve if the responses aren't anonymised you're not going to get many replies
Carlton Samuels:But I believe we must encourage full disclosure by anonymising the source of data
Michele Neylon:+1 Carlton
Luc Seufer:Honestly, can we stop coming up with fancy words that have no meaning in practice? This is how we ended up with the prohibition of "piracy" (instead of copyright infringement) in the RA and RRAs.Either one is using a privacy service to keep his details private or one is using a proxy service to have a third party acting as registrant on his behalf. A shield has a negative connotation to me.
Kathy Kleiman:+2 Carlton
Kristina Rosette:When we did the Supplemental Domain Tasting Request for Information, participants were assigned a randomized code, which was retained by staff. The responses, as disclosed to the drafting team and as published, were "anonymous". But, it was possible to link the respondent with their code. And, in fact, I remember doing it because some DT members doubted the veracity of certain responses.
Carlton Samuels:@Luc: OK. Anonymise means deliberately concealing the source of information
Nathalie Peregrine:Val Sherman and Nic Steinbach have joined the call
steve metalitz 2:Recipients of this survey are businesses, not individuals, and if they are subject to 2013 RAA some of this information needs to be made public anyway.
Mary Wong:@Kristina, thanks for that - it may be something we can look at, whether it be for the EWG survey or other subsequent surveys that this WG may wish to do.
Kristina Rosette:@Mary: I spent hours working with Staff on the Supp. RFI and am happy to provide whatever informatoin (if any) may be helpful.
Mary Wong:@Kristina, that would be great!
Maria Farrell:Hi all, joining late.
Carlton Samuels:@Speaker: Agreed. We can look at the data that is disclosed and infer a process. If we want to validate the details of the process maybe we can go one step furhter. Especially for the verification process we are agreed is required.
Stephanie perrin:@Luc Unfortunately, using the term "privacy" to denote protection of information that is not protected under privacy law (ie. Commercial) is confusing. IN the EWG we are trying to decipher precisely which data elements will be protected, misure of the term "privacy" matters. AS for the term "shield", it is a bit lame, if you have a better one we are all ears.
Luc Seufer:@Steve what do you mean?
Luc Seufer:@ Stephanie Anonymizer orsomething to that extent
steve metalitz 2:@Tim +1
steve metalitz 2:re anonymization
Margie Milam:Tim: Shield is only suggested for the privacy services, not proxy
Carlton Samuels:@Mary on some experiences on data sharing from previous WHOIS Studies. We are so advised.
Bladel:Sorry, audio problems.
Bladel:I will dial in. .
Mary Wong:@James, sorry to hear that; yes, please do. Thanks.
Mary Wong:@Carlton, that was my understanding as well.
Bladel:Now on the phone line. Thanks.
Mary Wong:@James, you're next, after Michele.
Gordon Dick:Am I missing something or are all these questions and focus on process and procedure of service rather than actually understanding why some corporates or consumers require the service and therefore also what procedures are required to service those needs?
Tim Ruiz:@Margie, ok. Still seems confusing to change it now after years of these services being out there. You will have people, respondents, wondering what you're talking about.
Michele Neylon:+1 to James
Mary Wong:@Gordon, my understanding is that this is the focus of the survey (i.e. actual practices) but you are right, the broader question is one of those that our WG has been tasked to examine.
Kathy Kleiman:Do we have a list of all P/P services, including 3rd parties?
Carlton Samuels:@James: Good point on disconnect of the service as a Registrar-only offering here forward.
Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: Not to our knowledge. Although we can pick up a lot from current registrations
Kathy Kleiman:Tx James!
Kathy Kleiman:True, tx Carlton.
Michele Neylon:Kathy - I don't think a definitive list exists
steve metalitz 2:Rebranding issue may be tempest in teapot since according to one of the Whois studies >90% of all such services are proxy services.
Kathy Kleiman:Tx Michele, I haven't seen one either
Tim Ruiz:Lawyers are not service providers?
Kathy Kleiman:Stephanie is right - one of the biggest sets of proxy providers, we think, are lawyers for large companies
Volker Greimann:obviously any rules must also apply to lawyers providing such services
Volker Greimann:all providers must be accredited or none
Kathy Kleiman:Lawyers will claim atorney-client privilge
Volker Greimann:they provide a service for their clients too
Volker Greimann:too bad
Bladel:Could also include domain brokers. Anyone registering a name for the use ofa third party.
Kathy Kleiman:I agree with you, lawyers provide proxy services
Carlton Samuels:@Tim: That might be a misspeak. Whomever provides the data that changes the common understanding of registration data is a provider of a service
Amr Elsadr:In developing countries, as dysfunctional as it is, a lot of web developers are defacto proxy service providers to their clients too.
Bladel:So if a current privacy service were set up by attys, then they could claim the same privilege?
Bladel:@Amr - yes, that is very common. And a major source of disputes between customers & service providers.
Kathy Kleiman:But Mary, didn't we find with our first attempt of the "Reveal" study that providers don't want to provide this information?
Kristina Rosette:@Kathy: What is the basis for saying that many lawyers provide proxy services? I want to go back and read whatever the source document(s) is/are. Thanks!
Volker Greimann:look at .de trustee services... most are run by lawyers
Kathy Kleiman:Tx you for the explanations, Mary and Margie@
Kathy Kleiman:!
Graeme Bunton:Back.
Carlton Samuels:@Tim: The EWG's objective is to develop a set of principles that could guide policy surrounding recognition of privacy claims attending the Registration Data Directory Service.
Kathy Kleiman:As I calculatte it, next mtg is second week in Jan: Tues, 1/7.
Marika Konings:Margie asks that it would be helpful if comments are received by 10 January at the latest.
Tim Ruiz:Thank you Carlton.
Kathy Kleiman:@Kristina, to earlier question: over time as Whois Review Team and prior task forces collected info, we heard from many attorneys who said if there were no proxy/privacy providers, they would still continue to provide the service and there was nothing we could do
Kathy Kleiman:to regulate or limit...
Kathy Kleiman:I don't like the answer (and don't kill the messanger!) but I heard it many times.
Graeme Bunton:Thank you Mary
Kathy Kleiman:Happy Holidays All!
Tim Ruiz:Thanks Mary!
steve metalitz 2:thanks Mary for chairing
Carlton Samuels:thank You all for the discussion. It certainly helped me
Marie-laure Lemineur:tx Mary and all
Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Happy holidays. :)
