[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for the updates,
did you express your concerns or support registrars representatives there?

Best,

Rafik


Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 05:21, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :

> as this working group has been chugging along for the past two years with
> scant input from ourselves (basically, we are in my view sufficiently
> aligned with the registrars who want to maintain this service at a
> reasonable cost) I have not updated regularly.  However, I think we should
> raise alarm bells here.....looks like they may be trying to price this
> service out of existence.  For reference, check out the last couple of
> months emails, including a knock down drag out fight to get Finance to
> produce their costing rationale.
>
> Just being a bit perrinoid....
>
> Steph
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document
> attached
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:22:29 +0200
> From: theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> <gtheo at xs4all.nl>
> Reply-To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> To: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org> <amy.bivins at icann.org>,
> gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
>
> Hi Amy,
>
> If there is no counter argument why do we provide feedback in the first
> place?
> Were the arguments not valid, not good enough?
>
> I still see a program startup, that will cost over a million, and that
> does not make sense to me post GDPR with a redacted WHOIS for 23+ days.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo
>
>
>
>
> On 13-6-2018 19:11, Amy Bivins wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the
> privacy and proxy service provider accreditation fees-related
> documentation, both on the list and during the meetings we have recently
> had on this topic.
>
> ICANN org has carefully considered the feedback of all IRT members in
> developing the proposed fee structure. Despite recommendations from some
> IRT members to reduce the proposed fees, ICANN org continues to believe
> that the fees proposed are reasonable and appropriate, for the reasons
> identified in the fees proposal documentation (attached).
>
> As noted in the fees proposal, ICANN org analyzed three relevant factors
> in reaching the fee structure that was proposed: relevant benchmarks; fees
> transparency, simplicity, stability and predictability; and anticipated
> program management costs. ICANN org understands that some IRT members
> disagree with this assessment, but did not find any of the arguments or
> suggestions raised by IRT members persuasive.
> If persuasive reasons are raised for revisiting the proposed fee structure
> during the public comment period, ICANN org commits to revisit the proposed
> fees. Please know that ICANN org sincerely appreciates the time and effort
> you committed to this exercise and the broader work of the IRT.
>
> Best,
>
> Amy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl <gtheo at xs4all.nl>]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:04 AM
> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org> <amy.bivins at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP fees proposal document attached
>
> Thanks Amy,
>
> Am I reading this correctly? The program startup and application
> processing is going to cost; 1,117,390???
> That is a huge amount of money for a program startup if only a few
> providers signup for this and the majority decides that the temporary spec
> or it's successor is enough privacy for registrants. But maybe I am reading
> it incorrectly.
>
> When I look at the Activity Relevant Department(s) Accredited Provider
> Account Management Services, it seems many of these activities already
> exist for Registrars. Can those activities not be handled by the same folks?
> I mean does it matter if a Registrar changes its name or a Privacy
> Provider? It's the same type of processing is it not?
>
> Also, a question about the PP Data Retention Waiver activity. What is this
> activity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo
>
>
> Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-05-22 10:20 PM:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Attached, you will find additional information related to the proposed
> fees for the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation program.
> Please review and send any comments/questions to the list.
>
> Thank you for your patience.
>
> Best,
>
> Amy
>
> AMY E. BIVINS
>
> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
>
> Registrar Services and Industry Relations
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
>
> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
>
> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org
>
> www.icann.org [1]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=Dw
> ICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-T
> plkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=BJtpG8Olp_3NAmSVAsUTW_HmMsKblc3_3k59uUScn
> vs&s=YBcBo-2U5vstASdpDcav-4W8w712XbFjerD180TrPRo&e=
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180614/172e16e4/attachment.htm>