17 June 2014
- Mary Wong
Analytics
The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 17 June 2014 at 1400 UTC 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/odrpd57
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll Call/Updates to SOIs
- Conclude discussions on D-4 (last draft sent on 12 June)
- Chairs’ presentation/suggestions for WG face-to-face meeting agenda in London
- Next steps
Documents for Review:
PPSAI Category D - Question 4 - 12 June 2014
Proposed PPSAI Community Questions for London
MP3 Recording: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/45507
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-17jun14-en.pdf
Attendees:
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Justin Macy – BC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
Darcy Southwell - RrSG
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Phil Marano – IPC
Susan Prosser- RrSG
Val Sherman – IPC
Tim Ruiz – RrSG
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG
Libby Baney – BC
Susan Kawguchi – BC
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Kathy Kleiman – NCUC
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Alex Deacon – IPC
Tobias Sattler – RrSG
Todd Williams – IPC
Luc Seufer – RrSG
David Cake – NCSG
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
Apologies:
Christian Dawson – ISPCP
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Jennifer Standiford – RrSG
ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 17 June 2014:
Marika Konings: Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 17 June 2014
Osvaldo Novoa: Hello all
Chris Pelling: afternoon all
Tim Ruiz: can't here anything yet
Don Blumenthal: Can you hear me?
Terri Agnew: No we cant Don
Holly Raiche: No Kathy?
Terri Agnew: Kathy just joined
Kathy: I'm on!
Kathy: Hi All!
Kathy: Hi Holly!
Kathy: Don can we go back and look at D, 2 and 3 briefly too?
Kathy: tx!
Holly Raiche: Hi - and see you in London
steve metalitz: Suggest we handle edits to background information on list.
Terri Agnew: Stephanie Perrin has joined
Kathy: Adding the following text:
Kathy: OUR STUDY ALSO SHOWS THAT IS IS TURE THAT: BANKS WHO HAVE NOT MAILICIOUSLY REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES HAVE A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE RATE OF USE OF PROXY/PRIVACY REGISTRATION. STUDY LIMITIONS: THE STUDY NOTES; “it is important to understandthat the selection we have made is not necessarily representative of the overall usage ofdomain names for lawful and harmless reasons.”
Kathy: tx...
Kathy: Can someone please summarirze for those of us who missed the discussion?
Marika Konings: @Kathy - please see the WG response / discussion which summarizes last week's meeting
Marika Konings: WG responde / discussion column (sorry, forgot the last word)
David Cake: It is certainly true that people invent new forms of malicious conduct all the time.
Terri Agnew: Phil Marano has joined
Stephanie Perrin: "without restricting the generality of the foregoing" usually works...with illustrative examples.
Holly Raiche: gree - I think the Whois Study gives some examples we could use
Luc Seufer: is malicious really appropriate? Shouldn't it read illegal or alledgedly so?
steve metalitz: Here we are talking about reports, i.e., allegations that are within the scope of what the abuse contact needs to handle.
Holly Raiche: @ Luc - there can be some behaviours that may be malicious, but not necessarily illegal in some jurisdictions
Luc Seufer: Thank Holly. That's why I thought, I don't like the idea of puting technical intermediary in the judge seat.
steve metalitz: @Kathy, your question will be discussed under "reveal." This question is about what would be covered by abuse contact.
Luc Seufer: Either something has been judged illegal or is blatnatly illegal (under the law of the p/p provider) and they need to act. Or they don't.
Chris Pelling: and agaim this comes does to where the P/P is located
Kathy: Interesting, tx Holly
Todd Williams: I may be missing something, but I don't see how the WG Preliminary Conclusion for D4 answers the question. The question seems to be about what types of conduct would be covered by the point of contact, but then the answer talks about what kind of standardized reporting form to use.
Holly Raiche: I think there are two kinds of response: one by LEA for which the abuse point of contact would be used, and the other is other types of conduct
steve metalitz: NO Don we also need an indicative list,but open-ended. .
Libby Baney: @Luc regarding the applicable laws, in some cases it may be true that the relevant law is where the p/p is located, but in instances for example of online sales of medicines the laws where the patient/consumer is located are also applicable
Marika Konings: @Todd - the preliminary conclusion is only one part based on the conversation last week.
Todd Williams: Thanks Marika
Tim Ruiz: ...or other forms of malicious contact that may yet be identified by ICANN Policy...
steve metalitz: @Kathy again, that is an issue for when a reveal or relay would be needed, not relevant to coverage.
Kathy: @Steve, this seems to be our "reporting" question
Kathy: I think the preliminary conclusion is one of conduct and not reporting mechanisms...
Kathy: IMHO
Chris Pelling: @Libby, sorry but this still comes down to the location of the P/P provider, it is at the discretion of the P/P provider if they feel the service is being abused by any other law
Volker Greimann: @steve: Even revealing the identity to one person violates the privacy of the customer
Chris Pelling: totally correct @Volker
Justin Macy: @Chris, I think the problem is when a law is in place to prevent a particular behavior in almost every jurisdiction and the registrant intentionally limits its activities to every jurisdiction, but the p/p providers.
steve metalitz: @Volker, this is why standards for reveal are important
Chris Pelling: @Justin, then sorry, but it is up to the PP provider whether/how they deal with it
Chris Pelling: some laws in the US and not law is the EU, and vice versa
steve metalitz: Support Don's proposals for London agenda. Will need to drop off this call shortly. See many of you in London!
Graeme Bunton: Thanks Steve
Chris Pelling: safe trip Steve
Marika Konings: Yes, definitely
Kathy: Not huge numbers of handouts, but enough for people to read across the audience.... perhaps
Volker Greimann: I have no problem with revealing to LEAs of competent authority.
Volker Greimann: Anything beyond that will need extreme justification
Justin Macy: @Chris, jurisdictional legality isn't the only consideration in this. See spam, which isn't illegal in a number of jurisdictions.
Libby Baney: @Chris - the good news is that this group, by adopting good policies on the issue of malicious activity, relay/reveal, can address malicious activity
Libby Baney: @justin - right
Luc Seufer: @Justin as long as spammers only spam internet users in their jurisdiction where spamming is legal
Luc Seufer: ;-)
Justin Macy: @Luc, correct. :)
Chris Pelling: @Justin, agree, but it will never be stopped I am sorry to say, and it certanly wont make difference with regards the PP service, that comes down to going after the mail server
Graeme Bunton: i think we're all gearing up for travel
Kathy: Tx Don!
Chris Pelling: and the IP of the mail server is always open to show
Kathy: Safe travels, All
Chris Pelling: @libby again down to the discresion of the PP provider and their jurisdiction
Chris Pelling: thanks Don
Chris Pelling: Sage travels all
Chris Pelling: Safe *
Holly Raiche: safe travels
Luc Seufer: Gratitude Don