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: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Continued discussion of possible revisions to Annex E
- Report from Sub Team 4 (documents forthcoming from co-conveners)
- [if time permits] Review issues noted from Parts 1-3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (from 15 September)
- Next steps
Documents for Review:
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-29sep15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsai-29sep15-en.pdf
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
Phil Corwin – BC
James Bladel - RrSG
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).
Holly Raiche:Graeme - you're souding very faint - closer to the mic please
Michele Neylon:sorry - was in another meeting
Michele Neylon:here now
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
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
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 Holly...it 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)
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.
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"?
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 ?
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"
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!
Gisella Gruber:Thank you all!