I take the liberty of forwarding the draft final report for the Privacy
Proxy Accreditation Issues working group, which will hopefully soon be
sent out for public comment. The team who have worked on this for the
past two years is busy examining this prior to our next and possibly
last working group call on December 1, trying to make sure that
everything we wanted in there is adequately represented. I doubt that
anyone not following this closely will be too interested in diving in to
have a look, but fresh eyes are always welcome. This is a very
important process, to protect the rights of registrants to maintain the
ability to use privacy proxy services. Do let me know if you find
anything in there that you question.
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin
PS the NCSG team on this is Kathy Kleiman, Stephanie Perrin, James
Gannon, Amr El Sadr and David Cake. Anyone wishing to take a look at
the WG activities can find the records here.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43983094
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Final Report with updated recommendations,
and next steps
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:38:51 +0000
From: Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Dear WG members,
Please find attached both a clean and marked-up (red-lined) version of
the updated draft Final Report. As the marked-up version may be somewhat
difficult to read given the number of paragraphs moved around, added to
or deleted, we hope the clean version will be helpful in providing a
straightforward read of the proposed final form of the WG
recommendations while the mark-up will show where the changes were made
from the draft report that was circulated on 8 October.
As noted in the WG Work Plan, circulation of this updated document opens
the period for the WG’s consensus call. Following this, in accordance
with the GNSO's WG Guidelines, the WG co-chairs will make a final
evaluation of the consensus support levels and, if necessary, assign
specific designations of such to each individual WG recommendation. Any
minority statements must therefore also be submitted by that time. As
noted in the WG Work Plan, the co-chairs plan to close the consensus
call period by *Monday 7 December 2015*. Unless determined otherwise as
a result of this consensus period, the recommendations are currently
marked as Full Consensus of the WG.
For your convenience, the main changes that were made to the draft
report include the following:
* All the substantive changes can be seen in the Executive Summary,
which retain the format and numbering of the recommendations from
the earlier draft. Most of the additional WG conclusions based on
discussions subsequent to 8 October were added to existing numbered
recommendations. The relevant portions of Section V (WG
Deliberations) and VII (WG Final Recommendations) have also been
updated to reflect the substantive changes to the numbered WG
recommendations in the Executive Summary. Most of the rest of the
report, and much of even Sections and VII, remain unchanged from
both the Initial Report (May 2015) and the draft Final Report.
* The final version of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework
reflecting the consensus of Sub Team 3 has been incorporated into
the report as Annex B. P_lease note that the final recommendation
includes only one option for dispute resolution, which is
jurisdiction over arbitration, in language discussed by the WG and
finalized by the Sub Team._ There is also a recommendation for a
post-implementation review of the overall framework, followed by
periodic reviews thereafter.
* On transfers, you will see from the recommendations that language
has been added, in particular to #8 and #21. _The former makes
reference to the effect of IRTP-C, and the latter – in relation to
de-accreditation – adds a specific recommendation to the effect that
a registrar must lift the otherwise-required lock under IRTP-C if so
requested by the beneficial user of a proxy registration_. This
recommendation is based on the narrower option presented by the
Registrar Services team to the WG following the WG call earlier this
week. We have also retained the original WG recommendation that the
next review of the IRTP expressly include consideration of the
effect on P/P registrations.
* On de-accreditation, we have replaced the original specific
individual recommendations with the new set of three general
principles recently reviewed by the WG.
* On definitions, we have included those for a Privacy Service and a
Proxy Service in the list of definitions, and added the most recent
version of the new, supplemental language about registrars not
knowingly accepting registrations from accredited (versus
unaccredited) P/P service providers, and the consequence that an
unaccredited provider effectively therefore has all the
responsibility of a Registered Name Holder.
* On LEA, we have added language to reflect the WG’s further agreement
in Dublin about “importing” a few critical elements from the
Illustrative Disclosure Framework into a suggestion that these be
included in any future LEA request framework that may be developed.
* In the general recommendation section, we have added recommendations
based on the work of Sub Team 3, as discussed by the WG in Dublin,
for an educational/outreach program and for the periodic provision
of aggregated statistics to ICANN by providers.
* Elsewhere, we have added or edited language, again based on the WG’s
discussions in Dublin and subsequently, to flesh out or clarify
existing recommendations. Most of these are indicated with a comment
box explaining where the change came from.
Thanks to everyone, especially our co-chairs and the various Sub-Teams,
for facilitating our progress toward a Final Report!
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: [log in to unmask]