Apologies - it was there when I did a reply all - here it is Holly On 6 Jan 2015, at 9:30 pm, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Holly,
thanks for this --- but I have seen no attachment in your message. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 06/01/2015 11:01, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Everyone
This is the document on privacy/proxy services that will be considered at the meeting in a few hours from now- with a hope that it can be released as a report for discussion in Singapore - but must be approved by the WG for release by 19 January.
Section One of the report is the summary - with highlights on the outstanding issues (some not labelled as issues but the wording makes it pretty clear what the issues still are - largely around how much effort should be made to contact the beneficial registrant for non LEA/Security messages, ability to charge for forwarding of messages, checking details of the beneficial registrant are a few of the main ones. What we haven’t touched is what to do if the ‘accredited’ P/P provider (and we don’t know what that means) doesn’t abide by the specification.
Clearly, going through this will be part of the session on privacy in the Singapore session
What I am looking for is any and all comments on this draft so that I can make any final comments in the next few days.
Holly
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 6 January 2015 Date: 6 January 2015 4:52:26 am AEDT To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Dear WG members,
The WG Chairs would like to use the call this Tuesday (6 January) to review the draft Initial Report (first circulated in December 2014 and re-attached for your convenience). While the Executive Summary provides an overview of the contents of the report, including noting that in respect of some Charter questions the WG has yet to arrive at preliminary agreement or has divided opinions, please review the draft with a view toward sharing your comments about the full report.
As you’ll recall, we are aiming to publish the Initial Report for public comment on 19 January (the publication deadline before ICANN52 in Singapore). In the event, however, that the WG considers it more appropriate to conclude discussions on outstanding items prior to publication, staff has prepared a draft updated Work Plan that takes into account publication of the Initial Report after the Singapore meeting. It is attached for your review as well.
Thanks, cheers, and wishing you all a very happy new year, Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 20 December 2014 00:44 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Draft Initial Report for your review
Dear WG members,
Please find attached, per the deadlines in our most recent Work Plan, a draft Initial Report for your review. We understand that the WG will likely be meeting next Tuesday, 23 December, to continue to discuss Category G and other issues if time permits. We understand also that issues relating to Category F remain under discussion, and that at the last WG meeting, it was agreed that outstanding questions on Category E will be posed to the community during the public comment period. As such, and given that the WG will have two scheduled meetings in January 2015 – prior to the posting deadline of 19 January for ICANN52 – to discuss the draft report, please bear in mind that this does not represent the final version of what will be published for public comment, as that will depend on any further progress, agreement or changes by the WG between now and 19 January.
In relation to the WG’s latest discussions on Category E and G, please note that we have added the following description of a “persistent delivery failure” to the preliminary conclusions for Category E: · "The WG considers that a “persistent delivery failure” will have occurred when an electronic communications system abandons or otherwise stops attempting to deliver an electronic communication to a customer after [a certain number of] repeated or duplicate delivery attempts within [a reasonable period of time]. The WG emphasizes that such persistent delivery failure, in and of itself, is not sufficient to trigger further provider obligation or action under this Category E unless the provider also becomes aware of the persistent delivery failure."
We have also continued to insert and maintain square brackets around language for which the WG has not yet reached agreement.
We look forward to continued discussions next week and to the WG’s review of this draft Initial Report come January.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html