The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 05 August 2014 at 1400 UTC 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/nxqjq84
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll call/Updates to SOI
- Finalize preliminary conclusions on E-1 (updated version circulated on 1 August)
- Commence deliberations on E-2 (attached)
- Next steps/next meeting
Documents for Review:
PPSAI – Category E Question 1 - updated 1 August 2014
PPSAI - Category E - Question 2 - 14 July 2014
MP3 Recording: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/46152
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-05aug14-en.pdf
Attendees:
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Justin Macy – BC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Darcy Southwell - RrSG
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Val Sherman – IPC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Susan Kawaguchi – BC
Kathy Kleiman – NCUC
Todd Williams – IPC
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG
Frank Michlick – Individual
Luc Seufer- RrSG
Volker Greimann-RrSG
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Libby Baney-BC
David Hughes-IPC
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Kristina Rosette – IPC
David Heasley-IPC
Dan Burke-Individual
Christian Dawson-ISPCP
Jim Bikoff-IPC
Sean McInerney-SOI
Apologies:
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
Alex Deacon – IPC
Paul McGrady – IPC
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Roy Balleste – NCUC
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 05 August 2014:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting on 05 August 2014
Chris Pelling:afternoon all :)
Luc Seufer:Hi Chris
Graeme Bunton:Good morning all
Christian Dawson:Good mornig
Michele Neylon:wow
Christian Dawson::)
Chris Pelling:@Don, please do not take this as rudeness, but can you turn your MIC down ?
Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick and Volker Greimann has joined
Holly Raiche:fine by me
Volker Greimann:Apologies, I am delayed on another call, will join this one in a few minutes
Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa has joined
Terri Agnew:Thank you for the information Volker
Chris Pelling:@Luc 'ello
Darcy Southwell:My audio isn't working ...
Darcy Southwell:I'll come back
Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio
Terri Agnew:Kristina Rosette has joined
Kristina Rosette:Apologies for being late
Luc Seufer:Sorry guys, but could we take a step back and address the root issue that mail servers can be silent and there is no obligation for a registrant to have his email address setup in a way it will send bounce/error messages?
Luc Seufer:exactly, you don't necessarily got a bounce back with "regular "registration
Mary Wong:@Luc I believe the current recommendation is to notify only when provider knows of actual failure (ie something similar to the "knowingly" standard in the RAA, albeit for a different situation)
Graeme Bunton:This is where I think we're a bit stuck, thanks Michele
Graeme Bunton:We're also leaving it more open than email. Could be form, captcha etc
Mary Wong:@Graeme, that's the current state of discussion, yes
Luc Seufer:@Mary thanks that's what the recommendation is saying but not what I am hearing on the call
Chris Pelling:@Steve - NOT all servers comply with RFC on bounce's
Chris Pelling:for example RFC3463
steve metalitz:@Darcy it is not an either/or. Investigate AND notify requester.
Chris Pelling:Sorry but are we missing the underlying server HAS to provide the bounce back in the first palce
Chris Pelling:*place
Mary Wong:@Darcy, there's currently a prelim conclusion for Charter question B-2 that concerns provider obligation to verify for accuracy
Darcy Southwell:Thanks, Mary.
Graeme Bunton:thanks Steve.
Kathy:What's the minimum baseline? What are the choices for p/p providers?
Libby Baney:Trying to define the world of possible "abuse case" messages strikes me as cumbersome and open to inconsistent interpretation
Kathy:Quick note: the question is phrased: What, if any, are the baseline minimum standardized relay process... be adopted by p/p providers..
Holly Raiche:@Kathy - I think that is the baselline
Kathy:@Holly, and I think your summary was a good one!
Kathy:yes
Luc Seufer:ICANN policy email as an example
Luc Seufer:the verification emails sent under 2013 RAA
Luc Seufer:etc.
Susan Kawaguchi:There is many types of emails that should be relayed. I do not understand why a proxy registration should be treated any different than a "regular" registration
Luc Seufer:I totally agree with you Susan
Kathy:@Susan: we've had long conversations regarding abuse, definitions of abuse, and the types of abuse messages that must be forwarded.
Kathy:(Relayed really)
Kathy:So now the idea of forwarding everything... interesting implications
Susan Kawaguchi:Proxy does not equal spam filters
Kathy:@Steve, shouldn't there be a choice?
Luc Seufer:@Kathy forwarding doesn't prevent you from applying an anti-spam filter
Susan Kawaguchi:as a domain name registrant I have a responsibility to have a functioing email address
Luc Seufer:just like for "regular" registration
Susan Kawaguchi:I agree Luc
Graeme Bunton:digging into some notes, for a sec
Mary Wong:@Luc, that is correct - even for a "forward all" obligation, providers should be able to filter or apply "commercially reasonable
Mary Wong:safeguards
Luc Seufer:Mary I am not speaking of the P/P provider, the RNH/user can use the filter that they chose to
Mary Wong:Ah, ok, thx
Luc Seufer:but this FW obligation should be on a best efforts basis
Luc Seufer:there is no guarantee those emails will be read by the user
steve metalitz:@Kathy or others: Could someone propose a list of the categories of notices that must be forwarded?
Mary Wong:@Kathy @Susan would the "commercially reasonable" language cover this situation?
Chris Pelling:We do - as its a three factor auth to get an email to the registrant/tech or nilling contact
Kathy:@Mary: I don't think so -- because "commercially reasonable" forarding of "all emails" (which I think is what you are suggesting) is far different that "allegations of illegal activities" which is what the question asks us
Mary Wong:@Kathy, yes, this is where E-1 elides into E-2
steve metalitz:@Chris so we now have one provider vote for the additive approach. Others?
Kathy:@Mary: so the standard would be "commercially reasonable" standard for forwarding allegations of illegal activities...? Sounds OK if that's the case.
Susan Kawaguchi:@ Michele I agree we shouldn't limit what services the proxy service provides but I don't think we should set the baseline at that granular level
Michele Neylon:Susan - I don't think we should set silly limits
Terri Agnew:Sean McInerney has joined audio
Mary Wong:@Kathy, for E-1 "commercially reasonable efforts to relay" is one option; if that is the preferred option, then the implications on E-2 (on screen now) will need to be addressed (or so I understand the discussion)
Chris Pelling:can I reply to this please
Kathy:sure!
steve metalitz:+1 Susan, a no-forward policy cannot be allowed. We discussed this in detail several weeks ago.
steve metalitz:.cat obtained a waiver from RAA Whois requirements
Michele Neylon:yes they did
Michele Neylon:kudos to them
Chris Pelling:Graeme ?
Mary Wong:We may have some AC audio issues
Graeme Bunton:i don't think it's actually kathy live
Graeme Bunton:sounds like its the recording malfunctioning
Volker Greimann:i can wait
Luc Seufer:this AC is haunted
Terri Agnew:It appears our AC audio has stopped working iwth Audio, I will reconnect it
Volker Greimann:I cannot hear steve very well, btw
Don Blumenthal:Am I coming through?
Graeme Bunton:not at the moment
Mary Wong:Apparently a problem only with those purely on AC mic and audio, so if you are on phone bridge you should be fine.
Luc Seufer:yes Don, you and ghost Steve
Kathy:no Don
Graeme Bunton:Well, that's an unfortunate way to end the call
Terri Agnew:one moment will re establish Adobe line
Don Blumenthal:I just got a notice that AC dropped audio
Don Blumenthal:Can't get back in
Volker Greimann:time is out anyway
Terri Agnew:Adobe connect has been re estalbished
Graeme Bunton:Yes please, thank you Mary
Luc Seufer:bye
Darcy Southwell:Thanks, bye.
