Re-sending as my original reply to Amy and the list was rejected. [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@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: Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 3:06 PM To: 'Amy Bivins'; ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Please respond by 28 Oct] Discussion Draft: Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Program Framework Amy, thanks for circulating this material. Sorry I could not make the call last week, and apologies if the question below was addressed there. The explanatory memorandum refers twice to an Annex 1 (see nn.2 and 4). But no Annex 1 was attached and I was not able to find it on the Wiki page. Could you point me to it please? Regarding the questions you posed, I don't have any reason to think that the timeline you propose is too aggressive, but look forward to hearing from others on the IRT who may have a different view. Steve Metalitz [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@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: ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:16 PM To: ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Please respond by 28 Oct] Discussion Draft: Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Program Framework Hello, All, Thanks so much for attending our Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Program Implementation Review Team kickoff call today. I'm attaching the slides from our call. Michelle distributed the call recording, chat transcript, and attendee list a short time ago. These will also be available on the wiki, https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/Privacy+and+Proxy+Services+Accredita.... If you have any issues receiving or sending communications using this email list, please let me know. I'm also attaching the first discussion draft of the Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Program Framework, which I sent around to the list last week. Please review this document when you are able and provide your feedback, questions, concerns, etc no later than 28 October 2016. This deadline is to ensure that your initial feedback can be worked into presentations/planned discussion agendas at ICANN57. Specifically, ICANN seeks IRT feedback on whether you believe this proposed approach delivers on the intent of the Final Recommendations. A few notes from the call
Two IRT volunteers expressed concerns about the aggressiveness of the timeline. Staff requests specific feedback from the IRT regarding what elements of the plan seem too aggressive and/or should be revisited (and why). One IRT volunteer expressed a positive view of the timeline One IRT volunteer questioned whether this implementation will need to be complete before the next round of new gTLDs Multiple IRT volunteers cautioned about the need to consider international data privacy and other laws throughout this implementation. Staff committed to a continued assessment of data privacy issues throughout this process.
Next Steps
Two sessions are scheduled at this topic for ICANN57-a presentation of the overall proposal and an IRT working meeting. Staff is looking for volunteers for the IRT to participate in the "presentation" session and we hope that all of you can attend the working meeting but for those who can't, materials and recordings will be posted. It was proposed that we have regularly scheduled IRT meetings. We will discuss preferred dates/times/schedule at our next meeting at Hyderabad and then will set up the regular meetings.
Thanks again, and please feel free to weigh in on the list if there are other items you would like to highlight for those who could not attend the kickoff call. Best, 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@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
