20 May 2014

The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 20 May 2014 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET). For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ldlymvl

Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/

Agenda:

Roll Call / SOI
Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2
Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2?
Continue deliberations on D1
Next steps / confirm next meeting

Documents for Review:

Proposed Template Language for Cat C Threshold Question (draft circulated on 19 May 2014)

Draft Template - Cat C Q-3 (as of 11 May 2014)

Draft Template - Cat D Q-1 (as of 19 May 2014)

MP3 Recording: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/45235

Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-20may14-en.pdf

Attendees:

Tim Ruiz – RrSG

Steve Metalitz - IPC

Kathy Kleiman – RySG

Justin Macy – BC

James Bladel – RrSG

Griffin Barnett – IPC

Alex Deacon – IPC

Laura Jedeed – BC

Sarah Wyld - RrSG

Holly Raiche – ALAC

John Horton – BC

Roy Balleste – NCUC

Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC

Volker Greimann – RrSG

Libby Baney – BC

Michele Neylon – RrSG

Chris Pelling – RrSG

Stephanie Perrin – NCSG

David Cake – NCSG

Valeriya Sherman – IPC

Susan Prosser- RrSG

Phil Marano – IPC

Paul McGrady – IPC

Jennifer Standiford – RrSG

Kristina Rosette – IPC

Brian Winterfeldt – IPC

Christian Dawson – ISPCP

Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP

Don Moody - IPC

Apologies:

Graeme Bunton – RrSG

Darcy Southwell - RrSG

Amr Elsadr – NCUC

Tobias Sattler – RrSG

Don Blumenthal – RySG

Maria Farrell - NCUC

ICANN staff:

Marika Konings

Amy Bivins

Joe Catapano

Terri Agnew

Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 20 May 2014:

Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 20 May 2014

steve metalitz:awaiting entry to audio bridge

Paul McGrady:Good morning!

Marika Konings:Same here...

John Horton:Morning, all.

Bladel:Wiating on the operator....

Val Sherman:good morning all

Tim Ruiz:Good morning

Michele Neylon:waiting ..

Kathy K:Morning All!

Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm on audio now too

Terri Agnew:Kristina Rosette has joined

Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined

Terri Agnew:Brian Winterfeldt has joined

Kiran Malancharuvil:I propose we use the GNSO guidelines to determine the level of consensus and the terms that the GNSO as carefully constructed

Kiran Malancharuvil:Do NOT agree that leaving such a strong phrase in as a "placeholder" is appropriate. Sorry.

Marika Konings:the GNSO WG Guidelines use the term 'most agree' or 'most support' - would that work?

Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined

Kiran Malancharuvil:Marika, I still think we need to have a better determination of what the group really thinks first

Kiran Malancharuvil:in addition to the language issue

Volker Greimann:James+1, but we need a vote for that

Kiran Malancharuvil:Because number of voices is not how consensus is determined

John Horton:Marika, I would concur with Kiran that it would be ideal to use the GNSO guidelinesn to assess the level of support.

John Horton:And I think we do need to have a better sense of exactly where the group is.

Bladel:Not a vote necessarily, but a consensus test.

Volker Greimann:fully agreed

Bladel:ANd this particularl quesiton needs to be opened up to a larger audience (outside of ICANN, the consumers of these services.)

Volker Greimann:We should use the correct terminology, when we know where we are

Terri Agnew:Roy Balleste has joined

Marika Konings:All, I've posted the relevant language from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on the right hand side

Kiran Malancharuvil:I don't think it matters in what context it's being used. It's still not an appropriate term

Marika Konings:The WG Guidelines also explain the process that is typically use to make a determination (which normally does NOT include voting)

Michele Neylon:just delete the term "overwhelming" and move on

Kristina Rosette:To be clear, I'm not suggesting we vote. I am suggesting that we ensure that all WG members who want to weigh in have done so or have indicated that their positions are still under development.

Kiran Malancharuvil:No, because majority is also not potentially accurate

Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined

Michele Neylon:This is a massive waste of time

Michele Neylon:we're 20 minutes into this call and we're arguing over two words

Michele Neylon:in a single paragraph

Alex Deacon:@michele +1 delete the term and move on.

Kiran Malancharuvil:Not to us Michele, and frankly I'm getting sick of you labeling things that you don't feel are important as a waste of time.

Michele Neylon:or put it to a vote

Tim Ruiz:A consensus of WG members believed that proxy/privacy services should be available to all entities.

Kiran Malancharuvil:It's not respectful in this environment.

Kristina Rosette:Do we have consensus (sorry) that we should replace overwhelming majority with the corresponding consensus characterization.

Kiran Malancharuvil:@Kristina, it's too early to determine consensus

Michele Neylon:Maybe just put it to a vote

Michele Neylon:or put brackets around the entire thing until we can put it to a vote

Kristina Rosette:@Kiran: Got it. Perhaps we should bracket text that needs to be revisited.

Kiran Malancharuvil:Probably a good idea, but don't want to include terms that may sway the issues in one direction or another

Val Sherman:+1 Kristina

Terri Agnew:Christian Dawson has joined

Kathy K:Should there be a difference in the data fields to be displayed if the domain name is registered or used by a commercial entity? - is that your recommended rewording, Steve?

steve metalitz:@Kathy, Yes for initial discussion.

Michele Neylon:Kathy's snubbing me? :)

Chris Pelling:Or as Mochele pointed out where does it start, where will it end,, ie what other "fields" will be worked into a whois service that already cant cope and is still not totally standard

Chris Pelling:@Kathy you will have lots of additional fields - I think personally this is something that should not be added

Holly Raiche:@Kathy +1

Tim Ruiz:I think at best, we could only recommend considering this or that the next time a WHOIS PDP or other WG considers changes to WHOIS. P/P services cannot enforce anything in the WHOIS.

Chris Pelling:@Tim +1

Bladel:Agree with Kathy.

Chris Pelling:@Kathy +1

Bladel:This is about how PP services use WHOIS,

Bladel:THey do not control output.

Tim Ruiz:Kathy is correct.

Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa has joined

Bladel:So a "partial" proxy?

Bladel:I don't agree with leaving "hints" in WHOIS.

Bladel:or if they have an SSL cert

Libby Baney:I don't agree with Michele's assumption that people don't use WHOIS, rather just rely on the About Us/Contact section of a website. As noted in the paper I circulated, WHOIS is an important mechanism for consumers -- and having transparent WHOIS is consistent with the AoC for consumer trust

Kiran Malancharuvil:WHOIS is an extremeley important tool for consumer protection

Bladel:aka "net vigiliantes"

Tim Ruiz:John, what does that have to do with C3?

Stephanie Perrin:I would like to see the consumer research that supports the assertion that whois is actually being used extensively by consumers for consumer protection. I understand that governments who have not regulated e-commerce rely on it, but I have not found those studies indicating the average consumer is using it, I did check with a couple of my contacts in consumer affairs here isn Canada.

Tim Ruiz:Kiran, waht

Kathy K:+1 James, I was just looking for the Whois Review Team report section...

Kathy K:It would be useful for us now.

Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, are you asking me a question?

Tim Ruiz:Sorry. Kiran, what does that have to do with C3?

David Cake:There are a number of commercial services that might be legal in their jurisdiction, providing services as described, but controversial enough to want to use privacy or proxy services to deter harrassment.

Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, it was in response to what was being discussed by John and MIchele

Tim Ruiz:Ok, thanks.

Kathy K:"Overall, awareness of WHOIS is low. When asked to find a website domain owner, most Users do not think to utilize the WHOIS site." - from Whois Review Team commissioned outside study

Laura Jedeed:+1 Kiran

Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy!

Tim Ruiz:what is th

Susan Prosser:+1 Kiran

Tim Ruiz:Sorry again. What is the problem we are trying to solve? Why is commercial use of a private name bad?

Tim Ruiz:No.

Michele Neylon:Tim - cos it's um ..

Michele Neylon:oh I don't know

Michele Neylon:Kathy - thanks for that quote

Kathy K:@Tim, I don't think commercial use is bad, nor do I see the vast majority of commercial users engaged directly with consumers. Most business use is business-to-business which is governed by entirely different rules.

Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, I think the white paper might be worth reading if you're still unclear about why consumer protection advocates like myself are advocating our position

Kathy K:+1 Volker - domain names are multi-use, and available for so many uses: listserves, FTP, websites, emails....

Stephanie Perrin:Excellent point Volker, re assets in bankruptcy.

Kiran Malancharuvil:End use consumers still have a right to know who isbehind the B2B transactions. For example, I have a right to know who makes the processor in my computer even if they refuse to sell it directly to me.

Kathy K:@Kiran: I have no idea who Fios/Verizon buys its fiber optic cable from - although it serves my house - and they would never let me see those contracts

Volker Greimann:Kiran: Then go to your local government and ask them to legislate a requirement to put an imprint on the webpage

Kiran Malancharuvil:but you would have the right to find out

Volker Greimann:It worked VERY well in Europe

Kathy K:+1 Tim

Libby Baney:@Tim -- I think there is a difference between using a p/p service vs providing different (but transparent) contact information for domain names engaged in commercial activities

Volker Greimann:no imprint on the page, don't do business

Kiran Malancharuvil:@Volker, are you suggesting that I have no place in THIS process?

Volker Greimann:not at all, but I am arguing that the right to know who you are doing business with belongs on the webpage, not the whois

Kiran Malancharuvil:I disagree, and I have that right, and in my opinion, the obligation

Libby Baney:@Volker -- how does that position square with the AoC?

Kiran Malancharuvil:The respect level for divergent opinions in this group is so low.

Kiran Malancharuvil:It's very discouraging.

Kathy K:@Libby, I think it does square with the AOC

Volker Greimann:as the AoC is on the way out, we will have to see...

Tim Ruiz:Kiran, disagreement is not disrespect.

Stephanie Perrin:The AoC does not and must not substitute for normal regulatory activity of governments.

Kiran Malancharuvil:The tone of the disagreement is what I'm addressing Tim.

Bladel:Didn't we have some other homework regarding Transfers & other transactions?

Kathy K:Because final answers were not mandated by the AOC.

Paul McGrady:Agree that a list of accredited providers makes sense.

Volker Greimann:just checked, the AoC states: " enforcing its existing policy". I see an emphasis on "existing" there

Bladel:Responsiveness doesn't guarantee you'll get the answer you want. :)

Michele Neylon:exactly

Michele Neylon:"Can I buy your domain for 10 euro"

Michele Neylon:no - get lost

Michele Neylon:"weh weh - I don't like that reply"

Michele Neylon::)

Chris Pelling:and more importantly lsat week, an answer to general joe may/will be different to that of LEA

Chris Pelling:both in time and tone

Michele Neylon:Chris - agreed

Terri Agnew:Don Moody has joined

Michele Neylon:An Garda Siochana tend to phone

Paul McGrady:I would like to hear more about the transfer issue than the 2 minutes remaining would allow today. Can we get it on the list for next time?

Michele Neylon:1 minute...

Chris Pelling:Paul, just make sure we dont spend 20 minutes clarrifying "wording" last week it was 1 word, this week 2 words...

John Horton:James, very late response on the "net vigilantes" point -- keep in mind it is sometimes customers too, who (in my world) got a drug that didn't work, and trying to figure out more information about the website they ordered from! :) So not just vigilantees...

Bladel:Agree. Let's get it on the agenda for next time.

Justin Macy:@Volker "Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. ... ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust."

Tim Ruiz:Thanks Steve! Bye all.

Kathy K:Tx Steve and All!

Bladel:thx all.

Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group

20 May 2014

Analytics