Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Sarah Wyld (RrSG), Theo Geurts (RrSG), Crystal Ondo (RrSG), Zak Muscovitch (BC) Alternates: Rich Brown (RrSG), Jothan Frakes (RrSG), Jody Kolker (RrSG), Arinola Akinyemi (BC) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Chat Transcript Transcript (see Zoom recording, chat tab) GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a diagram comparing the timeline of the existing Losing FOA with the proposed notification of TAC request discussed during the meeting on 18 October. Notes: 2. Welcome and Chair Updates - Doodle poll to pick another weekly time slot: choice was 16:00 UTC on Thursdays. We will start on 10 November. 3. Continue Discussion of Comments on Elimination of the Losing FOA – Recommendations 2 (see Public Comment Review Tool and Working Document [docs.google.com]) Look at the working document bottom of page 3: Discussion: ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a diagram comparing the timeline of the existing Losing FOA with the proposed notification of TAC request discussed during the meeting on 18 October. 4. Begin Discussion of Notification – Recommendations 3 and 4 (see Recommendation 3 Public Comment Review Tool and Working Document [docs.google.com] and Recommendation 4 Public Comment Review Tool and Working Document [docs.google.com]) From the Working Document: Recommendation 3: The working group recommends that the Registrar of Record MUST send a “Notification of TAC Provision” to the RNH, as listed in the registration data at the time of the TAC request, without undue delay but no later than after the Registrar of Record provides the TAC. 3.1: This notification MUST be written in the language of the registration agreement and MAY also be provided in English or other languages. 3.2: The following elements MUST be included in the “Notification of TAC Provision”: Discussion: Public Comments Suggested Edits on Privacy/Proxy Services (Proposed Edit (c)): Potential next step: Strawman revision: Recommendation 3: The working group recommends that the Registrar of Record MUST send a “Notification of TAC Provision” to the RNH, as listed in the registration data at the time of the TAC request, without undue delay but no later than after the Registrar of Record provides the TAC. Implementation Note: For the purposes of sending the notification, the Registrar of Record should use contact information as it was in the registration data at the time of the TAC request. In cases where a customer uses a Privacy/Proxy service, the Registrar of Record should send the notification directly to contact information associated with the underlying customer where it is possible to do so. Public Comment Proposed Edit (d): Include additional elements required to be included in the “Notification of TAC Provision” such as: Public Comment Proposed Edit (e): ICANN org understands that notifications tend to be in the form of an email, and in general emails typically are not secure methods of communication. RFC9154 in subsection 7 of section 4.3, notes "The registrar's interface for communicating the authorization information with the registrant MUST be over an authenticated and encrypted channel." Thus, ICANN org suggests the WG consider updating the language in recommendation 3.2 to note "If the TAC has not been provided via another method of communication, this communication will include a secure mechanism (e.g. a link using HTTPS that requires authentication) to provide the TAC." This suggested language change complies with RFC9154. Potential next step: Strawman revision: If the TAC has not been provided via another method of communication, this communication will include a secure mechanism (e.g. a link using HTTPS that requires authentication) to provide the TAC. See further public comments and proposed edits in the working document. 5. AOB |