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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Thanks for the summary, Maria. NCSG has pretty decent representation on this WG, although we could always use more help. Apart from Maria, both Wendy and myself have joined this WG, and Roy said he would too. It would be great to have a few folks from NPOC on board as well. This topic is a very important one on the privacy front, and will cross-cut with some of the work being done by the EWG. For a NCSG constituency to have no representation on it at all would be very disappointing. Maria?, as the WG liaison to the Council, does that mean you are required to have a more-or-less neutral role?

I predict some heated debates on this one, especially with the IPC familiars and whoever shows up from At-Large.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 21, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> 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.
>  
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131126/170fecc7/attachment.html>