- Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Slides/Questions for tomorrow's IRT call
by Jennifer Gore Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Amy, Thanks for sharing the slide deck. The only minor suggestion is as follows: · Slide 3: ICANN58 IRT meeting scheduled for Saturday, 11 March, 1:45-6:30 – indicate the time into UTC. From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:13 PM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Slides/Questions for tomorrow's IRT call Hello, All, In advance of tomorrow’s IRT call (at 15:00 UTC), I am attaching the slide deck, which includes specific questions that I’ll be asking you about tomorrow. If you have any feedback on these before the call, please feel free to share it on the list. These questions are also in the comments bubbles on the relevant Policy section drafts, but are easier to read in the slides. I look forward to speaking with you tomorrow! Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org

2 1

Updated PP Policy Section 1
by gtheo Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Hi Amy, AB24 has not been updated yet, I do recall on the list that Roger Carney made some good suggestions here and got support on the list. Or is this still pending discussion. AB10, I think Darcy is right here on the intent. Thanks, Theo

3 3

Updated draft Section 2, questions to continue reviewing on 31 January IRT call
by Amy Bivins Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

Hi, All, Per the additional comments on the list, I've updated this Section 2 document slightly, and I've incorporated additional questions into this document to continue our discussion next week. On our upcoming call on Tuesday, 31 January, at 15:00 UTC, discussion on this Section 2 document will pick up at Section II.E, Terms and Conditions. Update on ICANN58 Meeting It has been decided that we will have a half-day IRT meeting at ICANN58, on Saturday, 11 March, in the afternoon (I have requested space for the three afternoon time slots-so we will have space from 1:45-6:30). I apologize for the late notice on the approved day. As this is an official meeting day, I realize there may be conflicts, but I hope that you can attend so that we can make the most of this time. If you have questions, please let me know. Initial Discussion Question Before we dive back into Section 2 on Tuesday, I'm going to ask for your feedback about one set of recommendations. The recommendations are as follows: (see P13, item 15) A uniform set of minimum mandatory criteria that must be followed for the purpose of reporting abuse and submitting requests (including requests for the Disclosure of customer information) should be developed. Forms that may be required by individual P/P service providers for this purpose should also include space for free form text. P/P service providers should also have the ability to "categorize" reports received, in order to facilitate responsiveness. P/P service providers must also state the applicable jurisdiction in which disputes (including any arising under the Illustrative Disclosure Framework in Annex B) should be resolved on any forms used for reporting and requesting purposes. (see p.64) The WG also recommends that the use of standard forms and other mechanisms that would facilitate the prompt and accurate identification of a Relay request be explored during implementation (e.g. drop-down menus in a provider's web-based forms or fields that would require the filling in of a Requester's contact details, specifying the type of request or other basic information). These recommendations seem to indicate that this implementation should deliver (a) minimum mandatory criteria and required processes for abuse reports, information requests, and relay requests, by (b) developing a list of standard categories for requests to PP service providers and (c) identifying any specific requirements for the individual types of requests or reports. Can the IRT provide any further guidance regarding what the PDP WG intended here or confirm whether this understanding is correct? Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Specifics related to PP IRT discussion on data escrow/retention on 1/24 IRT call
by Amy Bivins Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

Hello, All, I reviewed yesterday's call recording to compile a full summary of the input we received from you related to the questions related to possible requirements on data escrow and retention. At the outset of our discussion on data escrow and data retention (beginning around 25:30 on the call), there was some hesitation by some in the room to discussing potential requirements for PP service providers. However, as we got further into the discussion, there seemed to be support for exploring proposals on these topics, but only to ensure that the requirements are the same for PP service providers regardless of whether or not the provider is Affiliated with a registrar (and ensuring no duplicate requirements for registrars). There are documented PDP WG discussions on data escrow. I have not located any WG discussion specifically on data retention. However, there are existing RAA requirements for retention of PP customer contact information. This, coupled with PDP WG discussions about ensuring that customers are protected to the extent possible if an accredited PP service is terminated or goes out of business, seems to imply that such a requirement-retaining a limited set of Customer information (name, email, address, telephone number) to ensure that these Customers can be contacted in this situation-may fall within the intent of the PDP WG recommendations. This interpretation seemed to be supported by many on the call yesterday, including Theo, Chris, Steve and Susan. As a result, based on the discussion yesterday, we will proceed with drafting proposals on these topics to be discussed with the IRT, unless there is a continuing question regarding whether this was within the intent of the PDP WG. If anyone on the IRT wishes to comment on this, specifically on whether you believe this is within or beyond the intent of the PDP WG, please do so by replying to this thread. The current RAA requirements are noted below. Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations (expires 1 January 2018): "2.5 Escrow of P/P Customer Information. Registrar shall include P/P Customer contact information in its Registration Data Escrow deposits required by Section 3.6 of the Agreement. P/P Customer Information escrowed pursuant to this Section 2.5 of this Specification may only be accessed by ICANN in the event of the termination of the Agreement or in the event Registrar ceases business operations." Note-this requirement to escrow PP customer contact information will expire with the interim specification RAA 3.6 Data Escrow. During the Term of this Agreement, on a schedule, under the terms, and in the format specified by ICANN, Registrar shall submit an electronic copy of the data described in Subsections 3.4.1.2 through 3.4.1.5 to ICANN or, at Registrar's election and at its expense, to a reputable escrow agent mutually approved by Registrar and ICANN, such approval also not to be unreasonably withheld by either party. The data shall be held under an agreement among Registrar, ICANN, and the escrow agent (if any) providing that (1) the data shall be received and held in escrow, with no use other than verification that the deposited data is complete, consistent, and in proper format, until released to ICANN; (2) the data shall be released from escrow upon expiration without renewal or termination of this Agreement; and (3) ICANN's rights under the escrow agreement shall be assigned with any assignment of this Agreement. The escrow shall provide that in the event the escrow is released under this Subsection, ICANN (or its assignee) shall have a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise (only for transitional purposes) or have exercised all rights necessary to provide Registrar Services. (NOTE-this is a data retention requirement-the same data that is required to be retained is required to be escrowed) 3.4.1.5 the name, postal address, e-mail address, and voice telephone number provided by the customer of any privacy service or licensee of any proxy registration service, in each case, offered or made available by Registrar or its Affiliates in connection with each registration. Effective on the date that ICANN fully implements a Proxy Accreditation Program established in accordance with Section 3.14, the obligations under this Section 3.4.1.5 will cease to apply as to any specific category of data (such as postal address) that is expressly required to be retained by another party in accordance with such Proxy Accreditation Program (emphasis added). Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org

2 1

Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated draft PP Policy Section 2, updates from today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call
by Darcy Southwell Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

Hi, Amy. Thanks for the quick turnaround on this draft. Just to clarify – we didn’t discuss that all uses of “should” would be changed to “shall” in a blanket fashion. Just the paragraphs we discussed/voted on. Were additional changes made that we didn’t discuss? As we discussed today regarding II(C), in order to avoid duplication of messaging to registrants, this paragraph should also include an exception, similar in nature to II(D)(ii), that a P/P services does not have to send this if the registrar it is affiliated with has also done this. I know we plan to come back to Section E (Privacy and Proxy Terms of Service) later on, but I wanted to point out something about the II(E)(vii) – per the footnote, the PDP did not indicate that the terms of service had to include pricing, but that the pricing had to be displayed to customers. This is also similar to Consensus Policies registrars must follow. I don’t believe the intent was for the pricing to be a part of the terms of service. We didn’t discuss AB25 today regarding II(I) but I wanted to add a comment for discussion. Based on the footnote and my memory, I don’t think this is for reports of all abuse “involving Registered Names that are registered through the Privacy and/or Proxy provider.” Domains are registered with the registrar or registrar’s reseller and the registrar is responsible for investigating abuse. I think the PDP’s intent was for P/P providers to maintain a contact for abuse relating to the P/P services only. Thanks, Darcy From: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org> Reply-To: <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:45 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Updated draft PP Policy Section 2, updates from today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call Hello, All, Thanks so much for your active participation on the Privacy/Proxy IRT call today—we had a very productive meeting. I’m attaching an updated version of Section 2 of the draft Policy document, which reflects our discussion on the call today. To summarize, instances of “SHOULD” in the document have been changed to “SHALL” pursuant to discussion on the call about what the PDP WG intended—that these would be requirements, not best practices. Nearly everyone who participated in the “green check/red x” ask seemed to agree with this, with the exception of Volker. Volker, if you would like to share any additional thoughts or reasoning surrounding the WG’s intent here and if anyone else feels strongly about this, please comment on the list. We want a full record and to ensure that we have interpreted the WG’s intent accurately, so we encourage everyone to please speak up (on this and always!). I’ve also made some updates to the “data reminders” and “terms of service” section. And we will pick up on the ToS section next week. Materials from the call will be posted on the wiki shortly. If anyone has questions or comments in the interim please reply to the list, and I will share any new materials with you as they are available. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

2 1

Updated draft PP Policy Section 2, updates from today's Privacy/Proxy IRT call
by Amy Bivins Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

Hello, All, Thanks so much for your active participation on the Privacy/Proxy IRT call today-we had a very productive meeting. I'm attaching an updated version of Section 2 of the draft Policy document, which reflects our discussion on the call today. To summarize, instances of "SHOULD" in the document have been changed to "SHALL" pursuant to discussion on the call about what the PDP WG intended-that these would be requirements, not best practices. Nearly everyone who participated in the "green check/red x" ask seemed to agree with this, with the exception of Volker. Volker, if you would like to share any additional thoughts or reasoning surrounding the WG's intent here and if anyone else feels strongly about this, please comment on the list. We want a full record and to ensure that we have interpreted the WG's intent accurately, so we encourage everyone to please speak up (on this and always!). I've also made some updates to the "data reminders" and "terms of service" section. And we will pick up on the ToS section next week. Materials from the call will be posted on the wiki shortly. If anyone has questions or comments in the interim please reply to the list, and I will share any new materials with you as they are available. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Materials and questions for 24 January PP IRT Call
by Amy Bivins Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Attached are documents for discussion on Tuesday's (24 January, 15:00 UTC) Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program IRT call: draft Policy sections 2, 5, and 6. We will review as much of these documents as we can Tuesday, and continue with them next week, if needed. The poll results show a clear preference for weekly meetings, so we will be moving to that schedule-thank you for your participation in the poll! A meeting reminder will be distributed on Monday. I want to flag some of the questions we have for you on Section 2, as noted in more detail in the attached: 1. The Final Report in some cases uses the word "SHOULD." ICANN org requests the IRT's feedback on the PDP WG's intent in using the word (as SHOULD is defined here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) and whether "SHALL" was intended in any of these instances. 2. With respect to data reminders, did the PDP WG intend for these reminders to reference (a) any Customer information that appears in WHOIS, (b) the underlying Customer data, or (c) both? 3. With respect to data validation and verification, did the PDP WG intend for the requirement to apply to (a) any Customer data, as relevant, in WHOIS; (b) underlying Customer data, as relevant, or (c) both? (Additional questions in document) 4. Did the PDP WG intend for ICANN org to implement new requirements for Privacy and Proxy Service providers to escrow and retain data, distinct from the existing requirements in the RAA? 5. Did the PDP WG intend for this implementation to create minimum, mandatory criteria for all requests to Privacy and Proxy Service providers (See draft Section 2.J)? We will also seek your feedback on the level of detail that is being proposed for the Policy versus the contract. If you have any questions or want to begin to discussing these issues on-list before the call, please feel free to do so. I look forward to speaking with you on Tuesday. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org

4 4

Jan. 24 PPSAI IRT call? WAS RE: Cancelation of 17 January IRT meeting; Please complete IRT poll re: schedule
by Metalitz, Steven Jan. 21, 2017

Jan. 21, 2017

Amy, I have seen no notice for the Jan. 24 call, nor any materials for review prior to the call. Is the meeting still on, does it start at 1500 UTC, and when will drafts for review be distributed? Thanks. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Cancelation of 17 January IRT meeting; Please complete IRT poll re: schedule Dear Colleagues, Upon further consideration, we have decided to cancel the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program IRT meeting that is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, the 17th. Given that Monday is a U.S. holiday (I had forgotten about this during our IRT call), there is not adequate time to distribute the necessary documents for review before the call. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. Looking ahead, in an effort to ensure we proceed conservatively and transparently, and that we clearly understand and document all IRT members' intent surrounding our timeline and meeting schedule, we request that you complete the following poll no later than Wednesday, 18 January: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FTW57SC On our call on Tuesday the 10th, I asked two discrete questions regarding our timeline and call schedule, and the responses we received in the Adobe room were as follows: Question 1: Should this IRT adopt the 12-month timeline circulated to the IRT in December (question asked at approximately 8:23 on recording)? Attendees in room (including some staff): 30 Yes: (2)-Alex Deacon and Steve Metalitz (Steve elaborated on audio that the IRT should proceed to the substance of this implementation and hold weekly meetings, and see how quickly we can proceed rather than explicitly adopting the 12-month timeline) No: (8) Leana Vitruk (on the phone); Alejandro Hernandez, Carolyn Mitchell, Darcy Southwell, Eric Rokobauer, Greg DiBiase, Janelle McAlister, Lisa Villeneuve Question 2: Is anyone opposed to moving to weekly meetings (in response to discussion at end of call regarding the need for timely scheduling and adequate notice of meetings, at approximately 53:00)? Attendees in room (including some staff): 33 Yes (meaning, IRT should move to weekly meetings): (8) Alejandro Hernandez, Alex Deacon, Eric Rokobauer, Leana Vitruk, Lisa Villeneuve, Roger Carney, Steve Metalitz, Vlad Dinculescu No (meaning, opposed to moving to weekly schedule): (2): Carolyn Mitchell, Greg DiBiase Based on the more "yes's" than "no's" to Question 2, and the discussion on the audio, which seemed to support moving to weekly meetings, I committed to schedule weekly meetings. However, many IRT members did not answer the question (and some were not on the call). This is why we are asking you to complete the above-linked poll, to ensure we clearly understand and correctly interpret all IRT members' views on this topic. Our next meeting is scheduled for 24 January 2017. If your survey responses reflect the apparent intent in the room on the 10 January call, we will proceed to adopt the proposed weekly meeting schedule as of our 24 January meeting. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

2 1

Action Required by 20 Jan: IRT Poll Re: Schedule
by Amy Bivins Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that we have asked you to participate in a poll regarding a proposed change to the IRT meeting schedule (to meet weekly rather than biweekly), https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FTW57SC. As of today, we only have 9 responses. Please respond to this very short three-question poll no later than tomorrow, 20 January. We need feedback from as many of you as possible (including the full spectrum of stakeholder groups and constituencies represented on the IRT). These current results represent the views of only a small fraction of the IRT. We need responses from all of you so that we can make a fully-informed decision regarding the IRT meeting schedule. Thank you for your assistance on this. I will be distributing the documents for discussion at our 24 January meeting to you on Monday. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:08 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl(a)icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Cancelation of 17 January IRT meeting; Please complete IRT poll re: schedule Dear Colleagues, Upon further consideration, we have decided to cancel the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program IRT meeting that is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, the 17th. Given that Monday is a U.S. holiday (I had forgotten about this during our IRT call), there is not adequate time to distribute the necessary documents for review before the call. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. Looking ahead, in an effort to ensure we proceed conservatively and transparently, and that we clearly understand and document all IRT members' intent surrounding our timeline and meeting schedule, we request that you complete the following poll no later than Wednesday, 18 January: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FTW57SC On our call on Tuesday the 10th, I asked two discrete questions regarding our timeline and call schedule, and the responses we received in the Adobe room were as follows: Question 1: Should this IRT adopt the 12-month timeline circulated to the IRT in December (question asked at approximately 8:23 on recording)? Attendees in room (including some staff): 30 Yes: (2)-Alex Deacon and Steve Metalitz (Steve elaborated on audio that the IRT should proceed to the substance of this implementation and hold weekly meetings, and see how quickly we can proceed rather than explicitly adopting the 12-month timeline) No: (8) Leana Vitruk (on the phone); Alejandro Hernandez, Carolyn Mitchell, Darcy Southwell, Eric Rokobauer, Greg DiBiase, Janelle McAlister, Lisa Villeneuve Question 2: Is anyone opposed to moving to weekly meetings (in response to discussion at end of call regarding the need for timely scheduling and adequate notice of meetings, at approximately 53:00)? Attendees in room (including some staff): 33 Yes (meaning, IRT should move to weekly meetings): (8) Alejandro Hernandez, Alex Deacon, Eric Rokobauer, Leana Vitruk, Lisa Villeneuve, Roger Carney, Steve Metalitz, Vlad Dinculescu No (meaning, opposed to moving to weekly schedule): (2): Carolyn Mitchell, Greg DiBiase Based on the more "yes's" than "no's" to Question 2, and the discussion on the audio, which seemed to support moving to weekly meetings, I committed to schedule weekly meetings. However, many IRT members did not answer the question (and some were not on the call). This is why we are asking you to complete the above-linked poll, to ensure we clearly understand and correctly interpret all IRT members' views on this topic. Our next meeting is scheduled for 24 January 2017. If your survey responses reflect the apparent intent in the room on the 10 January call, we will proceed to adopt the proposed weekly meeting schedule as of our 24 January meeting. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Cancelation of 17 January IRT meeting; Please complete IRT poll re: schedule
by Amy Bivins Jan. 13, 2017

Jan. 13, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Upon further consideration, we have decided to cancel the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program IRT meeting that is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, the 17th. Given that Monday is a U.S. holiday (I had forgotten about this during our IRT call), there is not adequate time to distribute the necessary documents for review before the call. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. Looking ahead, in an effort to ensure we proceed conservatively and transparently, and that we clearly understand and document all IRT members' intent surrounding our timeline and meeting schedule, we request that you complete the following poll no later than Wednesday, 18 January: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FTW57SC On our call on Tuesday the 10th, I asked two discrete questions regarding our timeline and call schedule, and the responses we received in the Adobe room were as follows: Question 1: Should this IRT adopt the 12-month timeline circulated to the IRT in December (question asked at approximately 8:23 on recording)? Attendees in room (including some staff): 30 Yes: (2)-Alex Deacon and Steve Metalitz (Steve elaborated on audio that the IRT should proceed to the substance of this implementation and hold weekly meetings, and see how quickly we can proceed rather than explicitly adopting the 12-month timeline) No: (8) Leana Vitruk (on the phone); Alejandro Hernandez, Carolyn Mitchell, Darcy Southwell, Eric Rokobauer, Greg DiBiase, Janelle McAlister, Lisa Villeneuve Question 2: Is anyone opposed to moving to weekly meetings (in response to discussion at end of call regarding the need for timely scheduling and adequate notice of meetings, at approximately 53:00)? Attendees in room (including some staff): 33 Yes (meaning, IRT should move to weekly meetings): (8) Alejandro Hernandez, Alex Deacon, Eric Rokobauer, Leana Vitruk, Lisa Villeneuve, Roger Carney, Steve Metalitz, Vlad Dinculescu No (meaning, opposed to moving to weekly schedule): (2): Carolyn Mitchell, Greg DiBiase Based on the more "yes's" than "no's" to Question 2, and the discussion on the audio, which seemed to support moving to weekly meetings, I committed to schedule weekly meetings. However, many IRT members did not answer the question (and some were not on the call). This is why we are asking you to complete the above-linked poll, to ensure we clearly understand and correctly interpret all IRT members' views on this topic. Our next meeting is scheduled for 24 January 2017. If your survey responses reflect the apparent intent in the room on the 10 January call, we will proceed to adopt the proposed weekly meeting schedule as of our 24 January meeting. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services 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(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0