February 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Feb. 5, 2014

Feb. 5, 2014

Wendy That doesn't actually help Whether something is "true" under law or not doesn't stop lawyers and companies from starting law suits against providers We get 200 DMCAs a week from one company. They're email so they can be ignored if we choose. We couldn't ignore 200 summons per week delivered to our offices even if we aren't obliged to act on them. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:19 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Volker > > Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this > in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . . That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ] So providers should be permitted to take that view. --Wendy > M > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker > Greimann > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM > To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability. > > Volker > >>> Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group, >>> >>> As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message... >>> >>> I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. >>> >>> I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. >> I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no >> possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other >> accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon >> receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, >> that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to >> get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to >> keep the name in the face of a complaint. >> >> --Wendy >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Gema >>> >>> >>> -----Mensaje original----- >>> De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz >>> Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 >>> Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >>> >>> Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: >>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces >>> @ >>> icann.org> >>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce >>> s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer >>> <wendy(a)seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM >>> To: Volker Greimann; >>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >>> >>> On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: >>>> Hi Gema, >>>> >>>> One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the >>>> provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the >>>> privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts >>>> as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated >>>> with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of >>>> its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less >>>> influence over the >>>> registration- >>>> >>>> So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' >>>> access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service >>>> provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with >>>> the registrar/reseller/registrant. >>>> In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are >>>> the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. >>>> Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. >>> If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate. >>> >>> I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. >>> >>> --Wendy >>> >>>> Volker >>>> >>>> Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: >>>>> Dear Group, >>>>> >>>>> I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you >>>>> have the result. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Gema Campillos >>>>> >>>>> Deputy Director of Information Society Services >>>>> >>>>> Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society >>>>> >>>>> SPAIN >>>>> >>>>> *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org >>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary >>>>> Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 >>>>> *Para:* >>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >>>>> >>>>> Dear Don, Jim and everyone, >>>>> >>>>> One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's >>>>> Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating >>>>> to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are >>>>> or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The >>>>> WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain >>>>> questions/categories need to be addressed before others. >>>>> >>>>> Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed >>>>> timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's >>>>> suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of >>>>> other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO >>>>> WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is >>>>> likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the >>>>> WG (or >>>>> sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. >>>>> Main >>>>> Issues) may be more organic than others. >>>>> >>>>> Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to >>>>> consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across >>>>> the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across >>>>> various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are >>>>> due in short order!). >>>>> >>>>> I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of >>>>> Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document >>>>> which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the >>>>> call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple >>>>> of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two >>>>> sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and cheers >>>>> >>>>> Mary >>>>> >>>>> Mary Wong >>>>> >>>>> Senior Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>>> >>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>>> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> * One World. One Internet. * >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org >>>>> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> >>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM >>>>> *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com >>>>> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko >>>>> f f(a)sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" >>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. >>>>> org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> >>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >>>>> >>>>> Jim, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very >>>>> anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for >>>>> now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is >>>>> inducing cold sweats already. :) >>>>> >>>>> I will note up front though that apart from process >>>>> considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of >>>>> our work plan decisions. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Don >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> >>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM >>>>> *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org >>>>> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan >>>>> >>>>> Dear Don, >>>>> >>>>> As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's >>>>> efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based >>>>> on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. >>>>> >>>>> Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following >>>>> suggested Work Plan: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey >>>>> responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group >>>>> members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. >>>>> >>>>> 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology >>>>> and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify >>>>> consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on >>>>> these issues. >>>>> >>>>> 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) >>>>> Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; >>>>> (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings >>>>> of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" >>>>> categories. We propose adding these categories, which would >>>>> include questions taken out of other current categories, as >>>>> identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the >>>>> remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching >>>>> category, would be addressed organically as a result of this >>>>> proposed process. >>>>> >>>>> a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by >>>>> each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by >>>>> staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the >>>>> upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. >>>>> >>>>> b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other >>>>> constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the >>>>> Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and >>>>> Working Group's responses (including majority and minority >>>>> views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or >>>>> Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such >>>>> as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file >>>>> of responses to survey accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) >>>>> Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views >>>>> w/Levels of Support. >>>>> >>>>> 6. Present Report for Public Comment. >>>>> >>>>> This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining >>>>> Main Issues questions. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> >>>>> James L. Bikoff >>>>> >>>>> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP >>>>> >>>>> 1101 30th Street, NW >>>>> >>>>> Suite 120 >>>>> >>>>> Washington, DC 20007 >>>>> >>>>> Tel: 202-944-3303 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: 202-944-3306 >>>>> >>>>> jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> >>>>> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 >>> 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, >>> Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting >>> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project >>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ >>> https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> >>> >> > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / > www.BrandShelter.com > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: > DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / > www.BrandShelter.com > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
by Mary Wong Feb. 5, 2014

Feb. 5, 2014

Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > Jim, > > Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see > the group¹s thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that > reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :) > > I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff > support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions. > > Best, > > Don > > From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com> > Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM > To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, > > As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the > upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in > the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. > > Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work > Plan: > > 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an > Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN > Staff. > > > > 2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and > issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or > near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues. > > > > 3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) > Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) > Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do > not include ³Publication² or ³Termination² categories. We propose adding > these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current > categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the > remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would > be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process. > > > > a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each > Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the > other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group > teleconference. > > > > b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other > constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. > Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses > (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result > to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one > document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. > > > > 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of > responses to survey accordingly. > > > > 5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) > Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of > Support. > > > > 6. Present Report for Public Comment. > > > > This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues > questions. > > Regards, > > Jim > > James L. Bikoff > Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP > 1101 30th Street, NW > Suite 120 > Washington, DC 20007 > Tel: 202-944-3303 > Fax: 202-944-3306 > jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com > >

9 14

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Feb. 5, 2014

Feb. 5, 2014

We've been discussing this concept in the EWG Stephanie and Carlton can probably speak to this in greater detail, but the general idea is that such a service does have a valid purpose BUT that it should be carefully controlled to ensure that is not abused / misused. The main problem is one of technical detail At the moment a LOT of P/P services are linked closely to registrars, but they're not all owned by registrars or are setup "at arm's length" A P/P service cannot delete a domain name - it doesn't have a technical interface into the registry .. only a registrar or registry can And I suspect that infosec / LEA etc., wouldn't really like the idea of playing whack a mole with bad actors etc., if *any* domain could be deleted based on a complaint .. It's an interesting yet quite complex issue to address. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:08 PM To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 02/04/2014 01:59 PM, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote: > Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group, > > As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message... > > I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. > > I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint. --Wendy > Regards, > > Gema > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz > Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 > Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. > ________________________________________ > From: > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i > cann.org> > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ > icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer > <wendy(a)seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM > To: Volker Greimann; > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: >> Hi Gema, >> >> One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the >> provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the >> privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as >> a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, >> the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data >> from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence >> over the >> registration- >> >> So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' >> access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider >> is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the >> registrar/reseller/registrant. > >> >> In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are >> the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything >> beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. > > If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate. > > I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. > > --Wendy > >> >> Volker >> >> Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: >>> >>> Dear Group, >>> >>> I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you >>> have the result. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Gema Campillos >>> >>> Deputy Director of Information Society Services >>> >>> Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society >>> >>> SPAIN >>> >>> *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org >>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary >>> Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 >>> *Para:* >>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >>> >>> Dear Don, Jim and everyone, >>> >>> One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's >>> Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating >>> to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or >>> whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG >>> may wish to consider, for example, whether certain >>> questions/categories need to be addressed before others. >>> >>> Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed >>> timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's >>> suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of >>> other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO >>> WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is >>> likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the >>> WG (or >>> sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. >>> Main >>> Issues) may be more organic than others. >>> >>> Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to >>> consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the >>> WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various >>> sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in >>> short order!). >>> >>> I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of >>> Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document >>> which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the >>> call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple >>> of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two >>> sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. >>> >>> Thanks and cheers >>> >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> >>> Senior Policy Director >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> >>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>> >>> * One World. One Internet. * >>> >>> *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org >>> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM >>> *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com >>> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff >>> @sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" >>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.o >>> rg%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >>> >>> Jim, >>> >>> Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very >>> anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for >>> now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is >>> inducing cold sweats already. :) >>> >>> I will note up front though that apart from process >>> considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of >>> our work plan decisions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Don >>> >>> *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> >>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM >>> *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org >>> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan >>> >>> Dear Don, >>> >>> As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's >>> efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based >>> on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. >>> >>> Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following >>> suggested Work Plan: >>> >>> 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey >>> responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group >>> members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. >>> >>> 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology >>> and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify >>> consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on >>> these issues. >>> >>> 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) >>> Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; >>> (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings >>> of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" >>> categories. We propose adding these categories, which would >>> include questions taken out of other current categories, as >>> identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the >>> remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching >>> category, would be addressed organically as a result of this >>> proposed process. >>> >>> a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by >>> each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by >>> staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the >>> upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. >>> >>> b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other >>> constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the >>> Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and >>> Working Group's responses (including majority and minority >>> views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or >>> Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such >>> as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. >>> >>> 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file >>> of responses to survey accordingly. >>> >>> 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) >>> Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views >>> w/Levels of Support. >>> >>> 6. Present Report for Public Comment. >>> >>> This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining >>> Main Issues questions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> James L. Bikoff >>> >>> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP >>> >>> 1101 30th Street, NW >>> >>> Suite 120 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20007 >>> >>> Tel: 202-944-3303 >>> >>> Fax: 202-944-3306 >>> >>> jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> >>> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 > 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, > Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting > Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project > http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams
by Marika Konings Feb. 5, 2014

Feb. 5, 2014

Val, to date 6 WG members have responded to the survey. The survey is still open for those interested to provide feedback (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86N33WX) The idea is that all feedback received will be included together with any input from SG/C/SO/ACs for review by the WG when it starts its deliberations on the charter questions. Attached you'll find the input as it was received until 7 January (note, additional responses came in after that date but we have not collated those yet). Best regards, Marika From: Val Sherman <VSherman(a)sgbdc.com> Date: Tuesday 4 February 2014 23:17 To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams Don, Thanks. That clarifies our approach. Since we are moving forward as a Committee of the Whole for the time being, it could be helpful to us as a group to do two things. First, it might be helpful for someone (e.g, the ICANN staff) to compile, summarize, and circulate the responses to the internal WG questionnaire. It would be interesting to know where all WG members--including those who may not be actively participating during our regular calls or on our e-mails--stand on each issue, and may enable us to identify areas of consensus or near consensus sooner, rather than later. It may also be easier to evaluate, incorporate, and address the external SO/AC and SG/C input we will eventually receive if the WG questionnaire responses are already shared and discussed. Second, to further focus our weekly discussions, what are your thoughts on tackling the issues category by category, in logical order? For example, the whole WG would begin work on "Registration" issues next week. We would seek to crystallize consensus and other positions on the topics within that category over the following weeks, and then move on to the next category (i.e. ³Maintenance²). Of course, input from WG members on one issue might overlap with other issues, but keeping our focus on a particular category of issues at a time might enable us to progress more efficiently and productively through our work. Val ----------- Valeriya Sherman | Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP 1101 30th Street NW |Washington DC 20007 (w) 202 944 3300 | (c) 303 589 7477 | vsherman(a)sgbdc.com <mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org] on behalf of Don Blumenthal [dblumenthal(a)pir.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:29 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams Kiran, Thanks. That definitely is the way we will start and reassess if needed. This project will have to be flexible in a few ways as we go along. Best, Don From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Committee of the Whole vs Subteams Thanks Don, I think Committee of the Whole is a better approach at this stage, especially for those of us that want to be involved in and aware of multiple issues, but don¹t have time to attend multiple calls per week. Best, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com/> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 AM To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams I¹m concerned that my outline of a full WG approach to our work as opposed to subteams was not as clear as I wanted. Some very interesting things were going on in chat and I made the mistake of trying to read and talk at the same time. Please contribute by voice if you can. I think that the interaction is better and I¹m not sure that everybody reads the transcript later (sorry, Nathalie). Mary, Marika, Steve, Graeme, and I looked at comments on the list and shared our experiences. The high points: Committee of the Whole Allows everyone to be involved Is particularly appropriate when issues don¹t separate cleanly Avoids problems that subteams create when a WG member wants to be on multiple teams or can¹t devote the time to subteams and the full WG Subteams Is good for people who have specific interest or expertise and want to focus their efforts Works best when major issues don¹t overlap much Can add efficiency in that topics are split out for concurrent analysis instead of the WG tackling them in sequence Add staff burden and the possibility of failure points if subchairs or members don¹t follow through We decided to start with a Committee of the Whole approach because we have some overarching issues to address. In addition, as we saw today and on prior calls, dividing topics may not be so easy when we get into section discussions. However, the WG can decide later whether we want to create smaller groups and, if so, how to do it. ICANN WGs have used many different models. Don

1 0

UPDATED MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 04 February 2014 at 1500UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 04 February 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140204-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Don Blumenthal - RySG Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Michele Neylon - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Justin Macy - CBUC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Jim Bikoff - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tatiana Khramstova - RrSG David Heasley - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Steve Metalitz - IPC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Kristina Rosette - IPC Gema Campillos - GAC Carlton Samuels - ALAC Paul McGrady - IPC Darcy Southwell - RrSG Billy Watenpaugh - RrSG Emily Emanual - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roy Balleste - NCUC Stephanie Perrin - NCUC Ben Anderson - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Theo Geurts - RrSG Keith Kupferschmid - IPC Maria Farrell - NCUC Jennifer Standiford - RrSG Apologies: Statton Hammock - RySG Luc Seufer - RrSG Susan Prosser - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Margie Milam Joe Catapano Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine AC Chat transcript PPSAI WG call on the 4th February 2014 Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 4 February 2014 Carlton Samuels:Hi everybody Graeme Bunton:good morning all\ Mary Wong:Hello, we will begin very shortly. Graeme Bunton:oh boy Nathalie Peregrine:please all mute speakers and phones when not speaking Maria Farrell:that was a little steam punk Holly Raiche:Hi Everyone Graeme Bunton:i appreciate that someone can take time from their job at the steel foundry to participate Theo Geurts:lol Don Blumenthal:apparently my mic isn't working.. I will reconnect. Carlton Samuels:Don yes Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon everyone! Carlton Samuels:There was a change this morning; the app requested use of your av subsystem Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has also joined the AC room Kathy Kleiman:Try to consolidate Mary Wong:Note that except for the three bullet points under Termination, the actual numbered questions under Publication and Termination are existing questions from the WG Charter that just got moved. Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the Ac room Phil Marano:Thank you Nathalie. Michele Neylon:now that is NOT me :) Amr Elsadr:If I understand Steve correctly, is he suggesting that we focus on P&P service accreditation and take out the section on publication? If so, I am in favor of that. Mary Wong:If it helps, these were the recommendations from the GNSO-ALAC DT, and the WHOIS RT, on which these questions were based: Mary Wong:From the GNSO-ALAC DT: Registrar responsibility for cancellation under appropriate circumstances of registrations made by privacy/proxy services offered by others for noncompliance with Relay and Reveal Mary Wong:From the WHOIS RT, on Terminating a Customer's Access: Cancel registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations steve metalitz:@Amr, We need to cover EITHER publication OR termination of proxy service for a particular registration. TFor purposes of clarity the first option might be better. Mary Wong: From the WHOIS RT, on cancellation of a customer's access: Cancel registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations Amr Elsadr:@Steve: Thanks. Is publication a charter question? I don't see it there. The word publication is in one of the questions, but referring to an earlier question on reveal. Michele Neylon:we haz echo Michele Neylon:yay Nathalie Peregrine:Ben Anderson has joined the call Tim Ruiz:P/P services cannot take down domain names on their own. The Registrar and Registry do that. Tim Ruiz:In fact, in regards Proxy services, they are actually the registrant. Maria Farrell:I am also wondering why we would extend the work into a new area, viz publication. Kathy Kleiman:Cancellation of a registration in a VOLUNTARY manner Mary Wong:@Steve, that's exactly right as to why the move was made and phrased this way in the Reveal section. Tim Ruiz:Then it is already there, as Steve said. Bladel:Reveal vs. Expose? Amr Elsadr:Reveal vs. Publish. I perceived them to be two different actions. Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx Steve! Kathy Kleiman:Let Tim Ruiz:Reveal - involves only the current requester. Publication is a public reveal. What is Expose? Kathy Kleiman:Let's keep it in Reveal -- where huge discussions will be taking place ! Mary Wong:The EWG status report mentions "reveal" and "unmask" as two different actions. Amr Elsadr:@Tim: Thnks. That's my understanding. Mary Wong:@Tim, @Amr, this WG is using "publication" to mean "unmask", correct? Tim Ruiz:Termination of a P/P provider accreditation should be relatively quick to complete. Just grab that section from the Registrar Accreditation program and modify from there. Tim Ruiz:...and maybe anything applicable from the RAA. Kathy Kleiman:Don, I think there is agreement not to include Publication Tim Ruiz:Actually, I think it would all be in the RAA. Kathy Kleiman:as a new title at this time... Amr Elsadr:@Mary: My understanding of the difference between publish and reveal are as Tim has stated. Unmask is confusing. Will unmasking be to the requestor or to "the world"? steve metalitz:Perhaps "termination" could be labeled "de-accreditation"? Kathy Kleiman:Let's add a few bullet points to Reveal to cover possible other options... Tim Ruiz:@Steve, agree. Mary Wong:@Amr, the EWG uses "unmask" to mean "making the name and contact details of the proxy service customer publicly available in the WHOIS" Stephanie Perrin:I like de-accreditation (or dis-accreditation??) much better.... Termination sounds very final. :-) Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Ah! Thanks. steve metalitz:agree with Don that "publication" is organizational issue not scope. Stephanie Perrin:I have an additional question: are you going to accredit attorneys who act for their clients? Tim Ruiz:If we really want termination, I know a guy in Jersey... Amr Elsadr:I don't understand the organizational issue vs. what's in/out of scope?? steve metalitz:Most (if not all) the questions about "reveal" would also be applicable to "publication" or"unmask" Bladel:And how would the registrar know this? Michele Neylon:I had to drop off and am now on adobe only Stephanie Perrin:You could bind them through contract to the registrar surely, with identical requirements...but good luck enforcing, they could shop registrars. Michele Neylon:i can listen steve metalitz:Q. 5 of the circulated version Paul McGrady:That is a great question. Doesn't seemc contractually possible to be unaccredited yet bound by the same standards. Specifically, ICANN compliance would have no contractual right to ensure compliance with any contractual terms. Marika 2:Tod - there is no #6, do you mean #5? Don Blumenthal:I think that we'll get to the lawyer accredutation issue when we discuss the issues Kathy Kleiman:@Paul, but that creates a real double standard. Mary Wong:I will look up the document history and WG Charter. Kathy Kleiman:Doesn't it? Gema Campillos:Maybe, the last part can be deleted from "that are bound.." Kathy Kleiman:Or Registrants could use non-accredited p/p providers Graeme Bunton:same issue steve metalitz:RAA 2013 forbids registrars from taking registrations from non-accredited providers (once accreditation is in place). Bladel:@steve: Then I think the second part of #5 probably doesn't apply. Gema Campillos:Steve, then the question is not necessary. Marika 2:@James - have I translated your comment correctly in a question? Bladel::) Maria Farrell:On the topic of publication, I still don't see why it is being added into this document. When we tried to correct some very loaded / unbalanced questions a few weeks ago, we were told much of the suggestions were 'out of scope'. But now whole new topics - publicaiton - are being added to the list with not discussion of whether they are *sufficiently* in scope. Maria Farrell:Adding to the chat as my phone line wouldn't let me talk / listen. Can this question pls be acknowledged? Gema Campillos:Agree with J. Bladel on both his last posts. Amr Elsadr:@Maria: +1 Maria Farrell:I'm a bit confused about how we have entirely new sections that seem to be cut from new cloth? Marika Konings:@Maria - the category of publication has been deleted and folded into reveal steve metalitz:The 2013 RAA citation is section 3.14 Maria Farrell:thanks Don, Marika Stephanie Perrin:I promise I will only say this once...the purpose of doing a regulatory impact assessment on this is to determine impact of our actions. If it drives traffic to the non-accredited P/P service providers, we have both driven the profits of legitimate registrars down, and boosted business to the non-accredited. How are you going to enforce the RAA prohibitions, I hope it is in a way that prevents new registrars from starting up. Given that criminal activity is largely of the fly by night variety, you need to figure out how fast enforcement can be exacted before you set in place a whole pile of new rules. Maria Farrell:Marika, I see the category has been added to another. It just seems odd to me that it was so hard to add something 'out of scope' a few weeks ago and seemingly easier to do it today. Marika Konings:@Maria - those questions come from the charter, nothing else was added apart from a new heading (which the WG has been using to organize / categorize the charter questions) Bladel:stephane: An important consideration. And this is true of many issues within ICANN: The registrars who participate are not the problem, but are a "stand in" for those operating in the shadows..... Marika Konings:and which now has been removed upon WG agreement ;-) Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Publication is not a charter question. The word is used in a question, but seems to me to be a mistake, because it is a follow up to a reveal question. Marika Konings:None of the category headings are charter questions - the WG has developed these to try and organize its work. Holly Raiche:At what stage are the questions being sent out to SO/ACs? Don Blumenthal:The charter questions as we got them from the GNSO already went out. Holly Raiche:Thanks Kathy Kleiman:@Mary - New question: did the text inserted by someone re: the Misuse of Whois Data Study get deleted or moved? It was important text, and if it got moved or put in a footnote, great! If deleted, that's a loss... Stephanie Perrin:@Bladel :-) so when and how do we get to practical issues surrounding enforcement? I did not see that as a charter question but it seems to me, as the french say, une question primordiale Maria Farrell:Question re. Singapore - tks a LOT Marika & Mary for the work plan. It would be great to maximise f2f time to advance the work. Any ideas how much time we'll get in singapore? Mary Wong:@Kathy, do you mean about the Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study? That got moved - I don't believe there was a reference to the Misuse Study. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Steve - in part because I think Main Issues now has questions that need the background and work of other areas Marika Konings:@Maria - we'll be requesting 90 minutes Marika Konings:@Steve - for any of the preliminary conclusions the idea would be that these are always circulated onthe mailing list for review & comment Kathy Kleiman:#3 in Main Issues for example - seems very premature for a first discussion... Kathy Kleiman:So I like the idea of reviewing the order of the questions... and then deciding what Category goes first Maria Farrell:how about ietf approach that f2f meeting conclusions are subject to on-list agreement? Mary Wong:@Todd - answer to your earlier question (sorry this took so long). The "knowingly" part of Question I.5 came from the WG Charter - which was phrased as a General Question for the WG to consider as an Additional Issue, and based on the WHOIS RT report referenced in the Staff Paper that was reviewed by the GNSO Council. Maria Farrell:It would be a real shame to limit f2f to a reporting session. Waste of resources Marika Konings:We'll make sure to number also the bullet points so that these can also be reordered if needed Carlton Samuels:Test Michele Neylon:F2f meetings need to be as productive as possible Marika Konings:@Maria - the way most PDP WGs manage their F2F meetings is just start with a 5 minute update for newcomers, then dive into the substance and leave some time at the end for comments / inputs from observers Michele Neylon:I'm not interested in flying half way round the world for the same conversation I can have on a call Kathy Kleiman:@Mary- tx! Michele Neylon:if possible .. Maria Farrell:tks marika, that sounds sensible. I think it would be a real mistake to not discuss substantive or important issues at the f2f, and attempt to come to resolutions, albeit ones that must of course be tested on the list afterwards Don Blumenthal:Michele, you were coming all the way to SG just for us? Marika Konings:@Maria - of course, we could try to carve out more time for the WG meeting, but often we then run into conflicts Maria Farrell:sure, tks Marika Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! Tim Ruiz:Thanks Don. Paul McGrady:Thanks everyone! Kathy Kleiman:Tx Don! Carlton Samuels:Bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks Don. By everybody. Darcy Southwell:Thanks all! Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:tx bye Phil Marano:Thank you, goodbye. Justin Macy:Thanks!

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 04 February 2014 at 1500UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 04 February 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140204-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Don Blumenthal - RySG Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Michele Neylon - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG Justin Macy - CBUC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Jim Bikoff - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tatiana Khramstova - RrSG David Heasley - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Steve Metalitz - IPC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Kristina Rosette - IPC Gema Campillos - GAC Carlton Samuels - ALAC Paul McGrady - IPC Darcy Southwell - RrSG Billy Watenpaugh - RrSG Emily Emanual - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roy Balleste - NCUC Stephanie Perrin - NCUC Ben Anderson - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Theo Geurts - RrSG Keith Kupferschmid - IPC Maria Farrell - NCUC Apologies: Statton Hammock - RySG Luc Seufer - RrSG Susan Prosser - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Margie Milam Joe Catapano Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine AC Chat transcript PPSAI WG call on the 4th February 2014 Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 4 February 2014 Carlton Samuels:Hi everybody Graeme Bunton:good morning all\ Mary Wong:Hello, we will begin very shortly. Graeme Bunton:oh boy Nathalie Peregrine:please all mute speakers and phones when not speaking Maria Farrell:that was a little steam punk Holly Raiche:Hi Everyone Graeme Bunton:i appreciate that someone can take time from their job at the steel foundry to participate Theo Geurts:lol Don Blumenthal:apparently my mic isn't working.. I will reconnect. Carlton Samuels:Don yes Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon everyone! Carlton Samuels:There was a change this morning; the app requested use of your av subsystem Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has also joined the AC room Kathy Kleiman:Try to consolidate Mary Wong:Note that except for the three bullet points under Termination, the actual numbered questions under Publication and Termination are existing questions from the WG Charter that just got moved. Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the Ac room Phil Marano:Thank you Nathalie. Michele Neylon:now that is NOT me :) Amr Elsadr:If I understand Steve correctly, is he suggesting that we focus on P&P service accreditation and take out the section on publication? If so, I am in favor of that. Mary Wong:If it helps, these were the recommendations from the GNSO-ALAC DT, and the WHOIS RT, on which these questions were based: Mary Wong:From the GNSO-ALAC DT: Registrar responsibility for cancellation under appropriate circumstances of registrations made by privacy/proxy services offered by others for noncompliance with Relay and Reveal Mary Wong:From the WHOIS RT, on Terminating a Customer's Access: Cancel registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations steve metalitz:@Amr, We need to cover EITHER publication OR termination of proxy service for a particular registration. TFor purposes of clarity the first option might be better. Mary Wong: From the WHOIS RT, on cancellation of a customer's access: Cancel registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations Amr Elsadr:@Steve: Thanks. Is publication a charter question? I don't see it there. The word publication is in one of the questions, but referring to an earlier question on reveal. Michele Neylon:we haz echo Michele Neylon:yay Nathalie Peregrine:Ben Anderson has joined the call Tim Ruiz:P/P services cannot take down domain names on their own. The Registrar and Registry do that. Tim Ruiz:In fact, in regards Proxy services, they are actually the registrant. Maria Farrell:I am also wondering why we would extend the work into a new area, viz publication. Kathy Kleiman:Cancellation of a registration in a VOLUNTARY manner Mary Wong:@Steve, that's exactly right as to why the move was made and phrased this way in the Reveal section. Tim Ruiz:Then it is already there, as Steve said. Bladel:Reveal vs. Expose? Amr Elsadr:Reveal vs. Publish. I perceived them to be two different actions. Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx Steve! Kathy Kleiman:Let Tim Ruiz:Reveal - involves only the current requester. Publication is a public reveal. What is Expose? Kathy Kleiman:Let's keep it in Reveal -- where huge discussions will be taking place ! Mary Wong:The EWG status report mentions "reveal" and "unmask" as two different actions. Amr Elsadr:@Tim: Thnks. That's my understanding. Mary Wong:@Tim, @Amr, this WG is using "publication" to mean "unmask", correct? Tim Ruiz:Termination of a P/P provider accreditation should be relatively quick to complete. Just grab that section from the Registrar Accreditation program and modify from there. Tim Ruiz:...and maybe anything applicable from the RAA. Kathy Kleiman:Don, I think there is agreement not to include Publication Tim Ruiz:Actually, I think it would all be in the RAA. Kathy Kleiman:as a new title at this time... Amr Elsadr:@Mary: My understanding of the difference between publish and reveal are as Tim has stated. Unmask is confusing. Will unmasking be to the requestor or to "the world"? steve metalitz:Perhaps "termination" could be labeled "de-accreditation"? Kathy Kleiman:Let's add a few bullet points to Reveal to cover possible other options... Tim Ruiz:@Steve, agree. Mary Wong:@Amr, the EWG uses "unmask" to mean "making the name and contact details of the proxy service customer publicly available in the WHOIS" Stephanie Perrin:I like de-accreditation (or dis-accreditation??) much better.... Termination sounds very final. :-) Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Ah! Thanks. steve metalitz:agree with Don that "publication" is organizational issue not scope. Stephanie Perrin:I have an additional question: are you going to accredit attorneys who act for their clients? Tim Ruiz:If we really want termination, I know a guy in Jersey... Amr Elsadr:I don't understand the organizational issue vs. what's in/out of scope?? steve metalitz:Most (if not all) the questions about "reveal" would also be applicable to "publication" or"unmask" Bladel:And how would the registrar know this? Michele Neylon:I had to drop off and am now on adobe only Stephanie Perrin:You could bind them through contract to the registrar surely, with identical requirements...but good luck enforcing, they could shop registrars. Michele Neylon:i can listen steve metalitz:Q. 5 of the circulated version Paul McGrady:That is a great question. Doesn't seemc contractually possible to be unaccredited yet bound by the same standards. Specifically, ICANN compliance would have no contractual right to ensure compliance with any contractual terms. Marika 2:Tod - there is no #6, do you mean #5? Don Blumenthal:I think that we'll get to the lawyer accredutation issue when we discuss the issues Kathy Kleiman:@Paul, but that creates a real double standard. Mary Wong:I will look up the document history and WG Charter. Kathy Kleiman:Doesn't it? Gema Campillos:Maybe, the last part can be deleted from "that are bound.." Kathy Kleiman:Or Registrants could use non-accredited p/p providers Graeme Bunton:same issue steve metalitz:RAA 2013 forbids registrars from taking registrations from non-accredited providers (once accreditation is in place). Bladel:@steve: Then I think the second part of #5 probably doesn't apply. Gema Campillos:Steve, then the question is not necessary. Marika 2:@James - have I translated your comment correctly in a question? Bladel::) Maria Farrell:On the topic of publication, I still don't see why it is being added into this document. When we tried to correct some very loaded / unbalanced questions a few weeks ago, we were told much of the suggestions were 'out of scope'. But now whole new topics - publicaiton - are being added to the list with not discussion of whether they are *sufficiently* in scope. Maria Farrell:Adding to the chat as my phone line wouldn't let me talk / listen. Can this question pls be acknowledged? Gema Campillos:Agree with J. Bladel on both his last posts. Amr Elsadr:@Maria: +1 Maria Farrell:I'm a bit confused about how we have entirely new sections that seem to be cut from new cloth? Marika Konings:@Maria - the category of publication has been deleted and folded into reveal steve metalitz:The 2013 RAA citation is section 3.14 Maria Farrell:thanks Don, Marika Stephanie Perrin:I promise I will only say this once...the purpose of doing a regulatory impact assessment on this is to determine impact of our actions. If it drives traffic to the non-accredited P/P service providers, we have both driven the profits of legitimate registrars down, and boosted business to the non-accredited. How are you going to enforce the RAA prohibitions, I hope it is in a way that prevents new registrars from starting up. Given that criminal activity is largely of the fly by night variety, you need to figure out how fast enforcement can be exacted before you set in place a whole pile of new rules. Maria Farrell:Marika, I see the category has been added to another. It just seems odd to me that it was so hard to add something 'out of scope' a few weeks ago and seemingly easier to do it today. Marika Konings:@Maria - those questions come from the charter, nothing else was added apart from a new heading (which the WG has been using to organize / categorize the charter questions) Bladel:stephane: An important consideration. And this is true of many issues within ICANN: The registrars who participate are not the problem, but are a "stand in" for those operating in the shadows..... Marika Konings:and which now has been removed upon WG agreement ;-) Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Publication is not a charter question. The word is used in a question, but seems to me to be a mistake, because it is a follow up to a reveal question. Marika Konings:None of the category headings are charter questions - the WG has developed these to try and organize its work. Holly Raiche:At what stage are the questions being sent out to SO/ACs? Don Blumenthal:The charter questions as we got them from the GNSO already went out. Holly Raiche:Thanks Kathy Kleiman:@Mary - New question: did the text inserted by someone re: the Misuse of Whois Data Study get deleted or moved? It was important text, and if it got moved or put in a footnote, great! If deleted, that's a loss... Stephanie Perrin:@Bladel :-) so when and how do we get to practical issues surrounding enforcement? I did not see that as a charter question but it seems to me, as the french say, une question primordiale Maria Farrell:Question re. Singapore - tks a LOT Marika & Mary for the work plan. It would be great to maximise f2f time to advance the work. Any ideas how much time we'll get in singapore? Mary Wong:@Kathy, do you mean about the Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study? That got moved - I don't believe there was a reference to the Misuse Study. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Steve - in part because I think Main Issues now has questions that need the background and work of other areas Marika Konings:@Maria - we'll be requesting 90 minutes Marika Konings:@Steve - for any of the preliminary conclusions the idea would be that these are always circulated onthe mailing list for review & comment Kathy Kleiman:#3 in Main Issues for example - seems very premature for a first discussion... Kathy Kleiman:So I like the idea of reviewing the order of the questions... and then deciding what Category goes first Maria Farrell:how about ietf approach that f2f meeting conclusions are subject to on-list agreement? Mary Wong:@Todd - answer to your earlier question (sorry this took so long). The "knowingly" part of Question I.5 came from the WG Charter - which was phrased as a General Question for the WG to consider as an Additional Issue, and based on the WHOIS RT report referenced in the Staff Paper that was reviewed by the GNSO Council. Maria Farrell:It would be a real shame to limit f2f to a reporting session. Waste of resources Marika Konings:We'll make sure to number also the bullet points so that these can also be reordered if needed Carlton Samuels:Test Michele Neylon:F2f meetings need to be as productive as possible Marika Konings:@Maria - the way most PDP WGs manage their F2F meetings is just start with a 5 minute update for newcomers, then dive into the substance and leave some time at the end for comments / inputs from observers Michele Neylon:I'm not interested in flying half way round the world for the same conversation I can have on a call Kathy Kleiman:@Mary- tx! Michele Neylon:if possible .. Maria Farrell:tks marika, that sounds sensible. I think it would be a real mistake to not discuss substantive or important issues at the f2f, and attempt to come to resolutions, albeit ones that must of course be tested on the list afterwards Don Blumenthal:Michele, you were coming all the way to SG just for us? Marika Konings:@Maria - of course, we could try to carve out more time for the WG meeting, but often we then run into conflicts Maria Farrell:sure, tks Marika Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! Tim Ruiz:Thanks Don. Paul McGrady:Thanks everyone! Kathy Kleiman:Tx Don! Carlton Samuels:Bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks Don. By everybody. Darcy Southwell:Thanks all! Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:tx bye Phil Marano:Thank you, goodbye. Justin Macy:Thanks!

2 1

missing comment from the call
by Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Hi everybody, I couldn´t find my name in time to raise my hand. I wanted to add to last Kathy Kleiman´s remark that the questions framed under "Main issues" are like the explanatory section of a law. They are usually written down after you´ve finished drafting the mandatory part of the law. So, maybe we´d rather tackle all or some of them (the ones that are more fundamental than others) at the end of our work plan. Cheers, Gema

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions (UPDATED)
by Mary Wong Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Dear WG members, As requested by Don and noted in his message below, attached is an edited version of the document that Don has sent, in both CLEAN and REDLINED versions. Please note that this version has not yet been reviewed by Don, Steve or Graeme however, in the interest of expediency it is being sent around now to enable you to review it before the next WG call on Tuesday. As the redlined version is now rather crossed-over, multiple times, you may find it easier to read the clean version! As Don has mentioned, this edited version does NOT have most of the substantive discussions/answers/notes that several WG members had sent via their redlines of the last Groupings document to the list. Rest assured, however, that all these comments and notes have been saved, and will be redistributed or raised again when the WG proceeds to tackle those particular questions. In those places where WG members have suggested moving certain questions to different categories, I have done so where this is consistent with Don's latest suggested grouping. I have also taken the liberty of adding several footnotes that attempt to summarize certain suggestions and comments made previously. Finally, I attach also the Issues Chart from the original Staff Paper that was published prior to the GNSO Council's initiation of this PDP, in the hope that as you review and discuss the latest grouping of charter questions it will be helpful background. Cheers, and have a great weekend, everyone, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org> Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 2:59 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions > Thanks for all of your contributions that last few days. I took Michele¹s last > version and tweaked it add Hector¹s comments. That should capture everything > since Tuesday. I am attaching a 1/31 iteration. > > However, our focus now needs to be the work plan, and locking the initial > questions down is the first step. With that in mind, we will distribute a > version of today¹s file on them. You won¹t see the substantive points in the > next file that comes your way, except where the points address why an item > should or should not be in the list. We will work off this document next > Tuesday. > > Regards, > > Don

5 4

Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
by Marika Konings Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Dear All, Apologies for the delay, but please find below the proposed agenda for the next PPSAI WG Meeting (Tuesday 4 February at 15.00 UTC). Attached you will find a first draft of the proposed work plan for review and discussion. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda PPSAI WG Meeting 4 February 2014 at 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Discuss latest Charter Groupings document and draft Work Plan 3. Next Steps/Next Meeting

1 0

PLEASE RSVP FOR DIAL IN DETAILS: Continuation of GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Sessions
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 3, 2014

Feb. 3, 2014

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28jan14-en.htm Continuation of GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Sessions Following a successful GNSO WG Newcomer Open House session pilot session<http://www.ispcp.info/policy-resources/gnso-working-groups-newcomer-open-ho…> in December of last year, we would like to continue with these sessions to allow for new GNSO WG participants to come together and ask any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and would like to offer this opportunity to come together, talk and answer any questions you may have. To allow for maximum participation in these calls, the proposed schedule is as follows: Thursday 6 February at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 March at 20.00 UTC Thursday 3 April at 12.00 UTC Thursday 1 May at 20.00 UTC Thursday 5 June at 12.00 UTC Thursday 3 July at 20.00 UTC Thursday 7 August at 12.00 UTC Thursday 4 September at 20.00 UTC Thursday 2 October at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html. If you are interested to join the next meeting on 6 February or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know (gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>) and they will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0