[PC-NCSG] Proxy and Privacy accreditation PDP informal meeting notes

[Maria Farrell]

Hi all,

Just as an FYI, here are my notes of this morning's informal meeting of the
P&P working group. It doesn't kick off officially for a couple of weeks,
but we took advantage of ppl being in BA to get together for an initial
discussion.

We should think of putting someone forward for chair / co-chair. I'm not
putting myself forward as a candidate for chair, but I'll be continuing as
the liaison to the Council.

Nominations for that will probably be open for the next couple of weeks.

We had a great showing from NCSG at the meeting; Wendy, Stephanie and Amr.

All the best, Maria

 Me as interim chair gnso liaison ? said I wasn?t running for chair and
there would need to be nominations for chair / co-chair and possibly vice
chairs.





James Bladel gave a summary of where the present PDP originated, i.e. as an
outcome of the 2013 RAA, and summarised the topics needing to be covered as
including data Disclosure, Contact Relay and reveal



Wendy ? gating questions, what if anything appears , additional burdens to
registrants and users. Don?t get into sunk cost of having developed best
practices and not feel you have to adopt them.





Steve ? as well as james? 4 points, there is unmask. Providing information
to requester who meets a certain standard, for the purpose of relieving
harm, and put the info into the public system. So we may need to id
standards both for revea and unmask. Also verification or validation of
contact information which currently not required, what if any obligations
does aproxy service have to verify customer data? 90% of services are proxy
? with no data ? not privacy, and it?s a huge issue ? icann studies show.



Stephanie ? what is the regulatory reach of icann in this. Risk of driving
more ppl out of icann?s regulatory reach.



Steve ? since icann accredits registrars, we do of them. Could drive ppl to
unaccredited services but ...





wendy Stephanie amr



Michele ? it?s not an either or decision. The current service expires in
2017 and we have to create the alternative.



James ? not always clear that proxy privacy services are selling on own
behalf, are retail, law firm or developer acting on behalf of clients. It?s
never cut and dry. There?s a question of awareness attached to any
responsibility. Richard clayton report showed links between bad actors and
priv proxy, but in some cases it was lower than in the general population.





Kristina ? support steve on adding unmask.



Wendy ? there is room in the raa for us to conclude that accreditation can
be thin.



Stephanie ? govt in Canada has to publish regulatory impact statement.
Don?t want to drive the proxy business to actors you don?t reach.



Amr ? outlined some concerns with the Richard Clayton report on
privacy/proxy services and abuse



Also some discussion on what the PDP should provide, i.e. whether a best
practices is an essential outcome. Conclusion ? we are directed to provide
an issues report on one.



*Actions:*



Staff to send documentation so everyone?s on same page and has common
understanding of definitions: whois privacy abuse study,  EWG draft paper,
wRt team report, Charter, whois definitions from existing documentation,
RAA 2013 section on interim privacy/proxy services.



Staff to send doodle poll for first official meeting of the group, and
deadline for nomination for chair / co-chairs and possibly vice chairs.
First meeting to be held within the next 2 weeks.



Participants to read documentation if they haven?t already, get message out
to potential participants, work on possible nominations for leadership, and
start thinking about what the work-plan should look like.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131121/b2fc7a35/attachment-0001.html>