25 November 2014

The next  Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 25 November 2014 at 1500 UTC (07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).

For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ls2vuwa

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

Agenda:

1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI
2. Continue deliberations on Preliminary Conclusions to date
3. Next steps/next meeting

Document for Review:

PPSAI WG Prelim Conclusions A-E - updated 3 Nov 2014

MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20141125-en.mp3

Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-25nov14-en.pdf

Attendees: 

Steve Metalitz - IPC

Graeme Bunton – RrSG

Frank Michlick – Individual

Chris Pelling – RrSG

Justin Macy - BC

Susan Kawaguchi – BC

Kristina Rosette – IPC

Val Sherman – IPC

Volker Greimann - RrSG

Theo Geurts - RrSG

Stephanie Perrin - NCSG

James Bladel – RrSG

Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG

Griffin Barnett – IPC

Darcy Southwell – RrSG

Alex Deacon – IPC

Kathy Kleiman – NCSG

Jim Bikoff – IPC

Paul McGrady – IPC

Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP

Phil Corwin – BC

Sarah Wyld – RrSG

Todd Williams – IPC

John Horton – BC

Camille Stewart – NO SOI, not mentioned as a member

Susan Prosser – RrSG

Keith Kupferschmid – IPC

Vicky Scheckler – IPC

Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC

David Heasley - IPC

Apologies:
Dick Leaning – no soi

Holly Raiche – ALAC

Christian Dawson-ISPCP

Carlton Samuels – ALAC

Michele Neylon – RrSG

Don Blumenthal – RySG

Lindsay Hamilton-Reid- RrSG

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Amy Bivins

Nathalie Peregrine

 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 25 November 2014:

Nathalie  Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 25th November 2014

  Chris Pelling:Afternoon all

  Theo Geurts:good afternoon all

  Graeme Bunton:good morning all

  Bladel:Morning.

  John Horton:Good morning, all.

  Graeme Bunton:Someone needs to mute their mic

  Alex Deacon:Morning everyone...

  Kathy:Hi All!  I got through the phone queue quickly today...

  Graeme Bunton:John, welcome back.

  John Horton:Thanks! :)

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all

  Keith Kupferschmid:Sorry for being late

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Keith, your name has been noted for attendance.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Phil Corwin has joined

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Vicky Schlecker and Volker Greiman have joined

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Kristina Rosette has also joined

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Paul McGrady has joined the AC room

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the call

  John Horton:Steve, I'd support Kiran's suggestion that we take a look at whether majority/minority remains the accurate/best description.

  Chris Pelling:Ok, at what point does a US lawyer have the right to overlook this ?

  Chris Pelling:this is a worldwide service

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Legal review of the question

  Chris Pelling:Can we keep the dog noises to a minimum please ?

  Mary Wong:@Kiran, do you have a suggestion as to how that can be done? I don't think we can review multiple jurisdictions, for instance.

  Chris Pelling:If this is placed on US lawyers only, I for one would then suggest this whole WG is a waste of time

  Kiran Malancharuvil:@Mary - surely ICANN has some precedent for doing this, for example what was done with IOC/RCRC

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Disturbance is coming from an AC mic, so please click on the white arrow to the right if the mic icon and click mute

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Who suggested limiting to US lawyers Chris?

  Kiran Malancharuvil:There are mutliple jurisdictional reviews done all the time

  Chris Pelling:Kiran - predominently its always been US lawyers, so, we would then need to have a discussion about what lawyers to use

  Mary Wong:@Kiran and FYI for the WG, ICANN Legal did a sampling of several jurisdictions to come up with a summary of how each of these sampled jurisdictions implemented certain international legal treaty protections. It was a descriptive summary, not a proposal/recommendation on the way forward.

  Chris Pelling:personall I dont think it will help at this time

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Okay, so suggest that instead of throwing around assumptions.

  Chris Pelling:personally )

  Graeme Bunton:Commercial use of resolved resources

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Frankly enough questions were raised in the sampling of international jurisdictions in FWD Strategies White Paper that I would find a deeper, independent legal review useful. 

  Graeme Bunton:Agreed, James

  Bladel:Loud & clear

  Kathy:I agree with John - and think the current description is pretty accurate

  Chris Pelling:I must admit I am agreeign with John too

  Kathy:(regarding John's recommendation to go forward with writing up our description)

  Chris Pelling:^^ Same

  Frank Michlick:It's up to the user to decide whom to do business with. Whois privacy does not prevent contacting the owner.

  Graeme Bunton:Does that not assume that the entity that owns the domain is also the entity operating the website? 

  Chris Pelling:Very crackily here Mary

  Frank Michlick:very very crackily and loud

  Chris Pelling:could be my end, anyone else ?

  Graeme Bunton:yep, your audio is poor Mary

  Philip Corwin:Mary audio breaking up

  Chris Pelling:thats better

  Val Sherman:clear now

  Bladel:clear now

  Frank Michlick:it's better if you're not too close / loud

  Chris Pelling:Thanks Mary

  Mary Wong:Thanks, everybody - sorry about that.

  Susan Kawaguchi:@ James but if you walk up to a storefront and choose to do business in a "real" store you would see a business license and interact with a person and then you may pay with a credit card but  you still want to know who the store owner is

  Graeme Bunton:Susan - that's the person operating the store, not the owner of the building.  We're talking about the building the store is in.

  Frank Michlick:Michele cannot join today.

  Bladel:Sure, but do we know who their landlord is?  That's the domain equivalent, IMO.

  Kiran Malancharuvil:@Graeme - the owner of the building has to be posted as well

  Volker Greimann:need to drop early today, apologies

  Kathy:@Susan, not at the farmer's market, not at the flea markets worldwide, not at the small stalls worldwide

  Bladel:Tht would be down at the county record's office or something.

  Susan Kawaguchi:the domain name registration equates to the business license

  Susan Kawaguchi:not in California it is on the wall of the business

  Bladel:No, the domain name is more closely the deed to the real estate.

  Graeme Bunton:That's an interesting fundamental difference in approach

  Susan Kawaguchi:not at all in my opinion James

  Bladel:"Registrant is who  you are giving your money to."  eBay and Amazon Marketplace would disagree with that statement.

  Stephanie Perrin:Can someone please point me to the agreed definition of a domain name?

  Susan Kawaguchi:No when I shop at Costco I may use a third party to faciliate payment but I am doing business with Costco

  Susan Kawaguchi:If Costco doesn't deliver on the product I purchase I may go to the third party payer to resolve an issue but I paid Costco

  Susan Kawaguchi:I do not see any difference between shopping online at Costco.com and costco at Almaden plaza

  Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Susan, there is no difference

  Mary Wong:@Stephanie, we do not have one but here is what the ICANN Glossary says about the DNS generally: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/glossary-2014-02-03-en#d

  Stephanie Perrin:Just as we cannot make the rules for domain name registration work as if all customers were Facebook, we cannot foray into the area of commercial regulation as if all businesses or potential businesses using name and number resources were Costco.

  Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Mary.

  Stephanie Perrin:Not very helpful in terms of doing a legal analysis, is it?  and defining a domain name is not within our mandate. 

  Kristina Rosette:Is there a reason we wouldn't use "Registered Name", which is a defined term under the RAA. 

  Mary Wong:@Kristina, that may be in line also with what Eric Brunner Williams wrote to the list a while ago about the technical parts behind/of a domain name.

  Mary Wong:Apologies for the duplicate D-4 (error in migrating across versions :))

  Graeme Bunton:I'm enjoying your slow slide into Barry White style baritones, Steve.

  Mary Wong:Per Kristina's suggestion - here is the definition of Registered Name from the 2013 RAA: ""Registered Name" refers to a domain name within the domain of a gTLD, whether consisting of two (2) or more (e.g., john.smith.name) levels, about which a gTLD Registry Operator (or an Affiliate or subcontractor thereof engaged in providing Registry Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance. A name in a Registry Database may be a Registered Name even though it does not appear in a zone file (e.g., a registered but inactive name)."

  Kathy:Interesting, "standardized" can be across all p/p providers, or within a p/p provider. So some may have all-online processing; while others may not

  Graeme Bunton:Minimum standards, shouldn't preclude the option to capture more

  Kathy:I worry about standardization...

  Stephanie Perrin:I think we should then change the wording to "standardized set of elements" rather than a standardized form.

  Alex Deacon:Minimum standards should be the focus.

  Kiran Malancharuvil:minimum standards are great, but I would like whatever is easiest for individuals

  Kiran Malancharuvil:contactability is key

  Kathy:@Stephanie: agree.  Mary: can the change be reflectedin the notes?

  Chris Pelling:Thanks all, and thanks Steve

  Bladel:Wishing all the non-US folks a quiet inbox this week!

  Kathy:Not standardarized form, but standardized elements?

  John Horton:Cheers. Thanks.

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, done!

  Stephanie Perrin:Thanks everyone.

  Kathy:Tx Mary, Tx Steve!

  Val Sherman:Thanks Steve, and everyone!