22 July 2014

The next  Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 1400 UTC 

 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET

For other times: http://tinyurl.com/lx3j5py

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

Agenda: 

1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI
2. Continue discussions on E-1 (incorporating latest mailing list discussion initiated by Alex)
3. Commence discussions on E-2 (if time permits)
4. Next steps/next meeting

Documents for Review:

PPSAI – Category E Question 1 REDLINE 21 July

PPSAI - Category E - Question 2 - 14 July 2014

MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140722-en.mp3

Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-22jul14-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

Stephanie Perrin – NCSG

David Heasley – IPC

Alex Deacon - IPC

Jim Bikoff – IPC

Kristina Rosette – IPC

Paul McGrady – IPC

Carlton Samuels – ALAC

Todd Williams – IPC

Tim Ruiz  - RrSG

Michele Neylon – RrSG

Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG

Roy Balleste – NCUC

Frank Michlick – Individual

Phil Marano-IPC

Luc Seufer- RrSG

Volker Greimann-RrSG

Maria Farrell-NCUC

Tobias Sattler-RrSG

Sean McInerney - SOI

Apologies:

Holly Raiche – ALAC

Don Blumenthal – RySG

James Bladel – RrSG

Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP

Christian Dawson – ISPCP

Don Moody - IPC

ICANN staff:

Marika Konings

Mary Wong

Terri Agnew

Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 22 July 2014:

Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 22 July 2014

  Carlton Samuels:Howdy do everybody

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton

  Chris Pelling:afternoon all

  Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Hello!

  Tim Ruiz:Hello all!

  Graeme Bunton:Good morning all, if you missed it, Don is travelling today and I'll be subbing in as chair today

  Paul McGrady:Good morning all.  I'm having some trouble with hearing the audio, so I may need to switch to dial in rather than Adobe.

  Terri Agnew:David Heasley and Jim Bikoff have joined

  Kathy:Hi All!

  Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon and Kristina Rosette have joined

  Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined

  Mary Wong:Steve's point has now been added to the E-1 template (see screen), but we have not had the chance to add Kathy's suggestion.

  Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined

  Carlton Samuels:FWIW, re Kathy's suggestion: +1. The ALAC's position is that all  terms of the RAA remain in force

  Tim Ruiz:What is bonified?

  Luc Seufer:4 to 5 years for a Bordeaux

  Stephanie Perrin:that was my question as well, we never really solved the problem of alleged bad behaviour

  Terri Agnew:Volker Greimann has joined

  Chris Pelling:my understanding was no one actually said they would not ?

  Chris Pelling:that and they cant read michele

  Terri Agnew:Maria Farrell has joined

  Luc Seufer:FWIW the French Registry, who is providing a de facto privacy service to every individuals registering a .fr domain name is using the form+captcha available here for their relay http://www.afnic.fr/en/dispute-resolution/tools-and-procedures/reach-a-domain-name-administative-contact/

  Maria Farrell:I have seen a Carlow policeman. Agree with Michele - you don't want one turning up on your doorstep!!

  Carlton Samuels:+1 to Kathy

  Chris Pelling:thanks Luc

  Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes, so leave the decision to the P/P provider and make that a compliance matter

  Carlton Samuels:@Graeme: James's explanation is compelling to me

  Tim Ruiz:As long as we also recognize that the P/P provider is not the begin and end all of the email chain. Email providers themselves may filter beyond the P/P provider's control, as well as in the chain after, as wwith

  Tim Ruiz:...as with the users software.

  Alex Deacon:can you hear me?

  Alex Deacon:ok  I need to dial in - just a sec.  apologies

  Michele Neylon:the sound of silence ..

  Terri Agnew:Alex, your mic isn't active

  kristina rosette:Graeme, can you walk through how you'd know in 15 days if it failed.  I'm not clear on that.  (I know the RAA provision, but not sure how it would apply here.)

  kristina rosette:sorry.  need to be on mute b/c of office construction

  kristina rosette:So, the idea is that the proxy provider would report to the registrar, who would then suspend? 

  Terri Agnew:Alex has activated his mic

  Tim Ruiz:Are we talking about only the emails that are relayed?

  Michele Neylon:AFK

  Chris Pelling:Steve, should the email address work, and your email is passed on but you get no response, then what ? are you going to continue emailing or ?  Not trying to create a storm, trying to understand

  Chris Pelling:@Steve, but the PP wont reply to you  or is that what you are trying to request ?

  Val Sherman:+1 Steve

  Kathy:What about sales request? If someone is trying to buy a domain name, is that the type of email I (as a customer) should be able to "opt-out" of?

  Graeme Bunton:You're right Kristina that I was mostly thinking about that in the context of a registrar afiliated service

  Tim Ruiz:Not all email systems send notice on bounces or non-deliverables, as far as I know. So there is really no way to enforece or check this anyway, as far as I know.

  Kathy:I hate to say it, but it sounds like a lot of work to check bounces...

  kristina rosette:@Graeme: That's the gap I'm thinking about - when there proxy/privacy provider is not affiliated with the registrar. 

  Justin Macy:Correect me if I'm wrong, I don't think Steve is talking about spam. An email that lands in a spam folder is still technically delivered. Even though it may be ignored.

  Tim Ruiz:Again, how would this be verified or enforced?

  Volker Greimann:parody?

  steve metalitz:@Volker --parity

  Marika Konings:Could P/P terms of service require/recommend that P/P provider email address is whitelisted to ensure that communications are received (and it is the responsibility of the registrant to do so)?

  Chris Pelling:did my hand raise ?

  Tobias Sattler:Sorry for being late.

  Graeme Bunton:it did, chris

  Frank Michlick:Sorry, I have to drop off the meeting.

  Michele Neylon:Marika - how can we check that?

  Carlton Samuels:@Steve: The question is what happens beyond the P/P provider's gate. There are several reasons for 'communications failure'. If we make the rule that a provider would have a duty to  relay, then response is still required  of the P/P as middleman. the responsibility to complete the communications chain

  Terri Agnew:Tobias Sattler has joined

  Tim Ruiz:Perhaps it is a best practice instead?

  Michele Neylon:+1 with Volker's comment

  Michele Neylon:some MTAs give back really useless errors

  Marika Konings:@Michele - you cannot check, but you make clear that it is the responsibility of the registrant to ensure that communications from P/P can be delivered.

  Michele Neylon:Marika - ok, but how does that help anyone? :)

  Marika Konings:hopefully it helps messages actually being delivered instead of getting stuck in the spam filter ;-)

  Chris Pelling:ok, well  ours  last 24 hours

  Mary Wong:Although not a 100% fail-safe guarantee, is this one place where the "knowingly" phrase from the RAA might come in useful? ie if the P/P providre knows a delivery failed, there's then an obligation to notify teh requestor?

  kristina rosette:US Postal Service provides delivery confirmation.

  Justin Macy:US Postal service will also return to sender if undeliverable

  Michele Neylon:Kristina - assuming they ever deliver :)

  Carlton Samuels:Why would one ever  assume 'communications failure'? I suspect elapsed time from original message? If you get no response then you check? The P/P provider is  duty-bound to relay the message . The message may have to be delivered by alternate means.

  Tim Ruiz:@Kristina, but at a cost to the sender, right?

  Chris Pelling:@Steve, but what if they simply dont respond

  Tim Ruiz:Is ther then any reason why P/P provider could not charge a reasonable fee for the bounce back or non-deliverable service?

  Mary Wong:@Michele, that was my suggestion for the group to consider - "knowingly"

  Kathy:@Mary: I think we are imposing a huge new obligation on p/p providers

  Tim Ruiz:Charging would cover P/P costs and discourage abuse of the complaint system. Again, only charging for getting a return confirmation of sorts.

  Chris Pelling:@alex not for international I would wager

  Chris Pelling:ie Royal Mail in the uk will not send a letter back to the usa at their cost

  Kathy:@Steve's idea: that the p/p provider user commercially reasonable means to delivery the email -- that makes sense to me.

  Michele Neylon:I like "commercially reasonable" and that kind of language

  Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Are we going to require that postal mail be relayed? Right now many P/P providers relay email but not letter mail...

  Darcy Southwell:I agree with Kathy and Michele about "commercially reasonable" obligations to deliver to the registrant what is submitted to to the p/p provider.

  Chris Pelling:ok - Ill put out there now, we charge the sender for relaying postal mail as it introduces a "man cost"

  Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Here we are, getting into the weeds of the protocols, and the meaning  the rules of communications. The rule is that messages must be relayed. Failure in this state means 'we didn't hear from somebody in a specified time'. Then, since you have the duty to communicate. The message may take several channels. Given the responsibility to deliver a message, you go for alternate communication channel. Now, what might be reasonable as a channel is a sliding scale, depending on effort and cost.  But there will be a consequence for non-communication.

  Tim Ruiz:Commercially Reasonable would be applied to the parties of the agreement. So, yes, it may be different for different parties.

  steve metalitz:+1 Mary, these are two separate points -- delivery and known failure

  Mary Wong:OK thanks!

  Marika Konings:Please note that some of the P/P providers sampled do seem to relay postal mail (in certain cases they would scan it and send it via email)

  Chris Pelling:@Marika, yes we do for a charge though

  Carlton Samuels:The first indication of a likely delivery failure is "no response in the x days set'

  Tim Ruiz:If it has value to the requestor, the a cost recovery fee seems reasonable.

  Alex Deacon:@Carlton - failure in this case means that the P/P received a failure message when attempting to communicate with their customer.   No resposne may not be a failure.

  Chris Pelling:@steve, email is free, written comms isnt

  Chris Pelling:Foe example, the charge we make is for time taken in scanning the document, and then confirming delivery back to the sender

  Chris Pelling:so that have a signed letter from us of delivery

  Luc Seufer:the secret business partnership did not lasted too long

  Carlton Samuels:@Alex. Understood. But I think we're focusing on details. Our interest is a response to a message. The details of delivery mode is less important  IMHO. Let the P/P and their customer decide

  Terri Agnew:Sean McInerney has joined audio

  Graeme Bunton:You're a bit loud Volker

  Kathy:+1 Carlton

  Michele Neylon:at least we can hear him

  Chris Pelling:Graeme I notice you never said that to Michele :p

  Chris Pelling:hehe

  Justin Macy:I tend to think we are talking about two seperate services, a bounce back being forwarded and a certified letter of delivery. I tend to think the bounce back cost should be paid by the customer. I'm not so sure on the certified delivery., I would need to think about it more.

  steve metalitz:David's suggestion was forwardingmail when electronic communications had failed 

  Volker Greimann:It does actually!

  Kathy:@Steve, tx for the clarification -- useful to know

  Chris Pelling:or they simply dont wish to respond for example

  Chris Pelling:so you want to hear from me again ?

  Chris Pelling:I dont mind answering that

  Michele Neylon:lack of response doesn't equate with lack of functionality

  Mary Wong:Go ahead, Chris

  Michele Neylon:I get a LOT of snail mail that I bin

  Luc Seufer:I think you meant "recycle" Michele

  Kathy:Tx you, Chris!

  Chris Pelling:sorry vlubt and to the point

  Chris Pelling:blunt *

  Tim Ruiz:I think a best practice is the way to go with this. Making it a requirement would only create yet another unverifiable, unenforceable policy

  Michele Neylon:I have a very large recycling bin by my desk

  Chris Pelling:but they dont confirm back to you

  Chris Pelling:that was @Steve

  Luc Seufer:here you go! blacknight.com even our complaint management system is green

  Chris Pelling:hehe Luc

  Chris Pelling:absolutely correct Michele

  Kathy:+1 to Michele: it's true in the real world,and it's true in the electronic world: there is no obligation to respond to a request to purchase, to a mere allegation of concern, etc

  Carlton Samuels:I do not believe we should be prescriptive about how a message is sent. The rule must outline a duty to respond and in a certain time. After that time has elapsed make the reaction to non-response sure and effective

  Carlton Samuels:@Michele: I agree, no duty to respond but there must be a clear outcome from non-response.

  Mary Wong:We'll send around an updated E-1 template in the next day or so.

  Chris Pelling:Thanks you all :)

  Kathy:Great moderating, Graeme, much appreciated!

  Paul McGrady:Thanks!

  Darcy Southwell:Thank you!

  Val Sherman:thanks!

  Maria Farrell:Thanks graeme

  Luc Seufer:thx

  Tim Ruiz:Bye

  Carlton Samuels:Thanks all. An interesting discussion

  Maria Farrell:+1 kathy