The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 29 September 2015 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).

Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: 


Proposed Agenda:

  1.  Roll call/updates to SOI
  2. Continued discussion of possible revisions to Annex E
  3. Report from Sub Team 4 (documents forthcoming from co-conveners)
  4. [if time permits] Review issues noted from Parts 1-3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (from 15 September)
  5. Next steps

Documents for Review:

Sub Team 3 Revised Annex E - 28 Sept

MP3 Recording:

Meeting Transcript:



Stephanie Perrin ­ NCSG

Todd Williams - IPC

Sara Bockey - RrSG

Frank Michlick ­- Individual

Steve Metalitz – IPC

Sarah Wyld – RrSG

Darcy Southwell – RrSG

David Hughes - IPC

James Gannon -­ NCUC

Paul McGrady ­- IPC

Susan Prosser- RrSG

Alex Deacon - IPC

Luc Seufer - RrSG

Michele Neylon - RrSG

Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP

Christian Dawson - ISPCP

Chris Pelling - RrSG

Val Sherman -­ IPC

Kathy Kleiman - NCSG

Lindsay Hamilton-Reid -­ RrSG

Graeme Bunton -­ RrSG

Terri Stumme ­- BC

Volker Greimann - RrSG

Stephen Truick - 

Carlton Samuels - At–Large

Griffin Barnett - IPC

Susan Kawaguchi - BC

Holly Raiche ­ ALAC

Rudi Vansnick – NPOC

Don Blumenthal-RySG

Roger Carney-RrSG



Phil Corwin – BC

James Bladel -­ RrSG


ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Marika Konings

Amy Bivins

Gisella Gruber


 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 29 September 2015

    Gisella Gruber:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call on Tuesday 29 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC

  Chris Pelling:afternoon all

  Chris Pelling:Yes graeme

  Chris Pelling:Gisella I must say that is a very nice accent

  Chris Pelling:aha my coffee

  Val S:hello all

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all

  Holly Raiche:So Graeme - another cup of tea- so very British/Oz

  Frank Michlick:I don't drink coffee. Tea FTW

  Graeme Bunton:I only drink coffee at ICANN meetings

  Graeme Bunton:mostly because the tea at ICANN meetings is terrible

  Holly Raiche:And the coffee is not that crash hot there - but maybe in Dublin...

  Graeme Bunton:you can never use a caraffe for hot water after it's been used for coffee

  Carlton Samuels:Morning all

  Holly Raiche:Have you thought that is what is served as coffee!

  Holly Raiche:Evening Carlton

  Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing a lot of ...ok gone

  Paul McGrady:I'm not sure my name was called, but I am here (at least for the first 30 minutes or so).

  Kathy K:echoes

  Holly Raiche:Graeme - you're souding very faint - closer to the mic please

  Michele Neylon:sorry - was in another meeting

  Michele Neylon:here now 

  Carlton Samuels:Better

  Gisella Gruber:Luc Seufer and Stephanie Perrin have joined the call

  Gisella Gruber:Marika Konings is on the call 

  Gisella Gruber:Susan Prosser has joined the call

  Gisella Gruber:Griffin Barnett has joined the call

  Sara Bockey:It doesn't reflect his request for indemnification of registrars

  Stephanie Perrin:Graeme you are sounding very faint

  Mary Wong:@Sara, see notes under A(6)?

  Mary Wong:Clarification - the redline you see is the SAME document as was discussed on 14 Sept (the only new textual changes are the ones noted under Section III in the right hand side notes pod)

  Sara Bockey:thank you for clarifying Mary

  Mary Wong:Staff did not "accept" the changes circulated on 14 Sept as much of these remain open for discussion.

  Darcy Southwell:+1  for James Gannon

  Graeme Bunton:weird

  Sara Bockey:+1 for James Gannon

  Graeme Bunton:switching headsets

  Holly Raiche:Graeme - we can't hear you

  Graeme Bunton:steve, if you will

  Graeme Bunton:or todd...

  Chris Pelling:totaqlly disagree

  Graeme Bunton:can't hear for a moment, Steve

  Stephanie Perrin:Totally disagree

  Chris Pelling:its the requestor that is creating the paperwork

  Sara Bockey:+1 Chris Pelling

  Val S:But the reason for that paperwork is that there is a contract bw the provider and their customer

  Holly Raiche:Agree with Stephanie and Chris

  James Gannon:Its the requestor that is asking for a service to be performed for them

  Frank Michlick:+1

  Sara Bockey:+1 James Gannon

  Carlton Samuels:I disagree. It is the requester that pays

  Sara Bockey:+1 Kathy K

  Chris Pelling:Sorry Val, I dont get you ?

  Carlton Samuels:@Kathy +1

  Chris Pelling:essentially ANY costs outside of the contract is the requestor requesting it

  Kathy K:Perhaps there is a way to define "nominal cost" rather than deleting it.

  Chris Pelling:not the fault of the person who is using the service 

  Holly Raiche:Up to the P/P provider - maybe Grame can comment?

  Chris Pelling:surely it is up to the provider to determin that

  Val S:The requestor is seeking information that would be available but for the service the provider offers to its customers

  Carlton Samuels:Who ecides what is nominal?  The P/P provider

  Sara Bockey:I agree with should be up the the Provider

  James Gannon:I;'ll pass

  Todd Williams:+1 Val

  Kathy K:If it is defined as "nominal" and "cost recovery" there are limits on what can be charged. 

  Graeme Bunton:Sorry, still trying to get a headset to play nice

  Kathy K:It's not a profit center

  Stephanie Perrin:lost you

  Stephanie Perrin:lost you

  Holly Raiche:I think Cost recovery is a good term - also agree with Michele

  steve metalitz:@Michele you can levy a fee on clients but not on non clients.  

  Luc Seufer:by asking the providers to act, you are asking to be provided with a service

  Sara Bockey:+1 Michele and Luc

  Carlton Samuels:@Michele +1. Makes sense that the provider has the right/ability to levy fees

  Frank Michlick:@Steve: If non-clients ask me to work for them they become a client and get invoiced.

  Chris Pelling:+1 to the speaker :)

  Luc Seufer:just like parties asking for bulk whois access

  Luc Seufer:under the RAA

  Frank Michlick:If you would charge the domain owner (without their doing) then it would be easy to drive up charges for the domainer owner by a maliciuous inquirer.

  James Gannon:Its split, under x number of hours its a flat fee over a number of hours its a per hour chrage

  Alex Deacon:ok - sorry

  Holly Raiche:Agree with Kathy

  Sara Bockey:+1 Kathy's suggestion

  Val S:+1 paul

  Holly Raiche:Not standardised - it will depend on each P/P and indeed, on each request

  Alex Deacon:Still no mic - apologies.   The comment I wanted to make is that I agree service providers shold have the flexibility to run their biz as they feel fit....

  Alex Deacon:...but is it appropriate for an ICANN agreement to mandate/suggest it?   

  Michele Neylon:Alex - probably not

  James Gannon:Graeme back and open mic =

  Luc Seufer:Or we could agree to charge a fee equal to one hour of the time of the complainant representative.

  Holly Raiche:@  Alex - too hard for ICANN I would guess.  It should be up to each P/P own systems - but also agree with Steve - maybe an appeal to ICANN?

  Graeme Bunton:Well, i can hear now, so that's something.

  Rudi Vansnick:if ICANN would mandate/suggest a fee for this services what about all other services ?

  Holly Raiche:@ Rudi - exactly.  Heaven help us if ICANN gets into that business!

  Kathy K:It's a valid concern

  Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree

  Kathy K:Can Mary pleasee revise the comment to this section (in the doc) to reflect today's discussion?

  James Gannon:Irish fee 20.95 per hour of search and retieval.

  Holly Raiche:@ James G - fine - but will tha work globally/for all size P/P providers?

  James Gannon:No was just a refernce point from Micheles point

  Mary Wong:No textual changes, Steve

  Holly Raiche:@ James - thanks - but still doesn't help globally

  Mary Wong:The document is unsync'ed so you can each scroll individually

  Luc Seufer:can’t we merge B.III and D and let providers the leeway?

  Mary Wong:@Luc, which sections are you referring to?

  Luc Seufer:Section I

  Paul McGrady:Apologies all, but I have to drop off due to a client event.  Have a great day!

  Mary Wong:@Luc, I see, thanks

  Chris Pelling:sorry I am not James, data mining is not what this is for

  Graeme Bunton:I *think* I'm back, for real this time.

  Kathy K:+1 Michele

  Sara Bockey:+1 Michele

  James Gannon:+1 Michele

  Luc Seufer:I think iii is enough. The proportionality principle is already baked in the "applicable laws"

  Luc Seufer:(for EU ones at least)

  James Gannon:Yes

  Kathy K:Unlimited retention in US :-(

  Carlton Samuels:The data retention rules vary from EU to US

  Carlton Samuels:Aaaah thks Kathy :-)

  James Gannon:We dont want to get back into forcing providers to be in conflict with their national laws

  Luc Seufer:and the laws should be the one of the provider and the customer

  Luc Seufer:i.e. the owner and the processor of the data

  steve metalitz:@Stephanie, customers and providers are not "bound to confidentiality".  All providers have TOS providing for disclosure without consent of customer. 

  Stephanie Perrin:Exactly.  Otherwise, if I am a commercial entity whose data has been released and then abused by the requestor, my only recourse is likely to be suing the provider.

  Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - a good approach - to consider that there is a contract between the customer and the requestor

  Stephanie Perrin:@Holly exactly, and any fees would be part of that contractual relationship.  Need not be onerous

  Don Blumenthal:OTOH, no US federal retention requiremeent

  Kathy K:Can the comments of this section by Mary now include the diversity of this discussion - and the deletion request?

  Mary Wong:@Kathy I've been taking notes

  Kathy K:Tx Mary

  steve metalitz:@ Kathy, no the opposite is the case:  shall is what was in Annex E, the longer language is new sugestion.   

  James Gannon:yup

  Kathy K:@Steve: I think "encouraged but not required to"

  Kathy K:is the better option

  Mary Wong:Per @Steve, the original language was "shall" but without a specific number of calendar days - that was what was put out for public comment and the 3 calendar days and "encouraged" language was put in after the comments came in

  Alex Deacon: is the telephone a "secure communication channel"?

  Holly Raiche:I think Grame's question is a good one - is the P/P provivder doing nothing okay?

  James Gannon:Thats the idea.

  James Gannon:Alex: Depends of the country. Some consider it securre some dont.

  Alex Deacon:one could argue that a phone call is more secure than naked email. 

  Holly Raiche:@ Alex - a cswitched cis=rcuit is most derintely more security than TCP/IP. However, if it is a VoIP call, it's over TCP/IP protocol

  Holly Raiche:sorry for misspelling

  James Gannon:+1 Holly, depends on the tech used in the country in question

  Holly Raiche:@ James - absolutely agree

  Val S:How about examples?

  steve metalitz:@Michele, not clear if you are for or against nicluding this phrase "using secure communications channel"?  

  Michele Neylon:For

  Val S:so just communication channel? 

  Holly Raiche:I like carrier pigeon

  Carlton Samuels:@Michele: +1. Keep it high level. It is policy advice, not implementation instructions

  Stephanie Perrin:"generally agreed security principles" seems to apply here, as it doesin most data protection law....

  James Gannon:Carrier pidgeon using a one time pad I'll take

  Mary Wong:All, do bear in mind that even with high level policy recommendations, they will need to be "translated" into implementable, clear advice for accreditation.

  Michele Neylon:I'm not speaking on behalf of the providers :)

  Michele Neylon:I'm speaking on behalf of me / one of my companies

  Mary Wong:That will be the job of the Implementation Review Team that will be formed after the recommendations are formally approved/adopted by the GNSO Council and then the Board.

  James Gannon:Email is inherently insecure

  steve metalitz:@Kathy and Paul if still there, how about subteam 4 -- status?  

  Holly Raiche:Anything TCP/IP based is 'best endeavours'

  Don Blumenthal:Carrier pigeons are extinct.  

  Chris Pelling:@Don, they all got eaten ;)

  Holly Raiche:@ Chris - which is why maybe they weren't 'secure' communications

  Chris Pelling:@Holly, how could you prove otherwise with no evidence ?

  Chris Pelling::)

  Michele Neylon:Chris - you wouldn't eat the pigeopns in Milan

  Michele Neylon:well you could, but you'd only do it once

  Don Blumenthal:Yep. Or taken to inercept messages

  steve metalitz:@Kathy can you point me to where in NCSG comments the "reasonable basis" formulation is opposed?  

  steve metalitz:@ Jeames G Both formulations are "old language" 

  steve metalitz:James

  Stephanie Perrin:We need further discussion on these changes in my view, not clear yet where we are landing.

  Kathy K:@Steve: the full language and all options were put out for public comment, 

  James Gannon:thanks all

  Val S:thanks all

  Kathy K:Tx All!

  Luc Seufer:thanks

  Gisella Gruber:Thank you all!

  • No labels