May 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Nathalie Peregrine June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss 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 these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are 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> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html. If you are interested to join the next meeting on 5 June or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we 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! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

1 1

Updated versions of templates for C-3, D-1 and D-2
by Mary Wong May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached for your review updated templates for Charter Questions C-3, D-1 and D-2, in which we have tried to capture the main suggestions, points of agreement and open issues raised on the call this past Tuesday. Please note that we have not updated the text for the Threshold Question, C-1 or C-2. As agreed by the WG, discussions on these are expected to continue via email on the list. As such we will update those documents at the point at which the Chairs believe it appropriate to do so, following further input and discussion on-list from WG members. 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. *

1 0

Apologies
by Tim Ruiz May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Sorry I missed today's call. Simply forgot The timezone change as I am in Iowa this week. Best, Tim

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 27 May 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 27 May 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140527-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140527-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar%23mar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Justin Macy - BC James Bladel - RrSG Alex Deacon - IPC Laura Jedeed - BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG John Horton - BC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Libby Baney - BC Michele Neylon - RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG David Cake - NCSG Jennifer Standiford - RrSG Christian Dawson - ISPCP Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Don Moody - IPC Darcy Southwell - RrSG Graeme Bunton - RrSG Don Blumenthal - RySG Luc Seufer - RrSG Phil Karnofsky (for Phil Marano) - SOI Todd Williams - IPC Jim Bikoff - IPC Frank Michlick - RrSG Apologies: Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Prosser- RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Kristina Rosette - IPC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Tobias Sattler - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Terri Agnew ** 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 27 May 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 27 May 2014 Chris Pelling:Afternoon all :) Graeme Bunton:no no no, good morning! Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all! John Horton:I concur with the "Morning" voices. :) Kathy K:Hi All! Don Blumenthal:And "afternoon" for folks in Chris's part of the world. Graeme Bunton:someone needs to mute a mic Jennifer Standiford:Hello all Volker Greimann:Hello, everyone in a good mood hope? ^_^ Mary Wong:Please remember to mute your mic if you are not speaking. Bladel:Which James? Terri Agnew:Libby Baney has joined Kathy K:Our goal, mine and James, was to raise and define questions -- not to answer any of them Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon has joined Michele Neylon:I am here even though I sent apologies Terri Agnew:Welcome Michele, I have adjusted attendance list Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined Michele Neylon:telephone is working Michele Neylon:the wifi here though is really bad Michele Neylon:so if I get dumped out of Adobe I'll try to reconnect Terri Agnew:Michele thank you for letting us know Kiran Malancharuvil:Is the data escrow requirement the same in 2009 as 2013 RAA? Graeme Bunton:Thanks James Bladel:Not exactly. Bladel:2009, registrars had a choice to include PP data in data escrow or declare to registrants that their names were at risk. IN 2013, this choice was removed and PP service data was included in escow deposits. Luc Seufer:The flagging of domain name using p/p would help to that regard.We could imagine offering a p/p temporary set of contact details for the sole purpose of registrar transfers. The set of details would "expire" (the email address would stop forwarding) after a short lapse of time and would conduct to the suspension of the domain name. But we would need to make a second validation process initiation by the gaining registrar (in case the transfer goes through) and the (not) losing registrar (if the transfer doesn't go through).But I think this is quite outside our charter... Luc Seufer:;-) Kathy K:Does the AuthInfo code help, Luc? Kiran Malancharuvil:Well, can the question be included in the framing of the questions? Volker Greimann:reading lucs novel Kiran Malancharuvil:What to do in the case of 2009 RAA signatories that made the choice not to escrow? Kathy K:Agree - can we circle back to this? Michele Neylon:we can get stats on 2013 vs 2009 signees Kathy K::-) Kiran Malancharuvil:Right, I'm just asking that it is included in the questions. Bladel:Those names are at risk if hte registrar fails. Michele Neylon:yes Kathy K:Great - glad we can keep editing online! Kiran Malancharuvil:we can continue the discussion about this part on the list. Justin Macy:+1 to continue to edit on list Laura Jedeed:+1 Mary Wong:We will try :) steve metalitz:+1 Kathy, staff can handle this Kathy K:Can we call it an ICANN-published list? Kathy K:Would it be appropriate to ask a Registrar to list its accredited p/p providers? Kathy K:e.g. on its website? Bladel:Seems similar to current handling of registrar urls. Mary Wong:@Kathy did you mean recommend that Registrars include a link to their Affiliated P/P providers (as defined in the RAA)? Kathy K:@Mary, just raising it as a question for the Registrars... Kathy K:and all Luc Seufer:for those under 2013 it will be mandatory. Luc Seufer:(or at least it's my reading) Michele Neylon:is there text on the screen? Mary Wong:@Luc, thanks - yes I should have said 2013 RAA (and wondering how that may apply if we are talking about linking to Affiliated versus "all ICANN-accredited) providers. Don Blumenthal:Michele, the draft D1 is on the screen Graeme Bunton:Michele's hadn is old Graeme Bunton:hand, rather Graeme Bunton:Michele would like to speak post James Graeme Bunton:(but his adobe is not working) Kathy K:James: what are the two parallel channels of communication? Sorry to miss it... Bladel:one is public, "reasonable & prompt" Bladel:One is for Law enforcmenet. monitored 24/7. Kathy K:tx! Kathy K:What James and Michele say makes sense. Graeme Bunton:++tsunami Michele Neylon:being able to filter the tickets makes sense Kathy K:Learning from the 2013 RAA experience and opening up to various forms of communication to the p/p provider makes sense too Michele Neylon:filter as in divy out to the correct places Luc Seufer:and for the reccord, the LEA referred to are the one in the applicable jurisdiction. Volker Greimann:I am very dedicated to convince you all that that is not what the word was intended to mean Michele Neylon::) Kathy K:We do need to allow time for investigation Graeme Bunton:Agreed Kathy K:Tx for the discussion today! Chris Pelling:thanks all :) Bladel:Thanks Don. Luc Seufer:Merci Don!

1 0

some good news
by Kathy Kleiman May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Hi All, I thought I would add a piece of good news - albeit a bit off topic. My documentary, The Computers, had its world premiere this past Saturday at the Seattle International Film Festival. As some of you know, it is the untold story of six young women who programmed the US's first all-electronic, programmable computer as part of a secret WWII project. They did not receive credit when the ENIAC was unveiled in 1946, after the war ended, and it took over sixty years for us to find and tell their story. It's a great story -- and we played to a sold-out and very receptive audience. In the midst of our robust dialogue and exchange, I wanted to share this good news. Best, Kathy

4 3

Proposed Agenda and revised draft Cat C for review
by Marika Konings May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next PPSAI Working Group meeting which has been scheduled for Tuesday 27 May at 14.00 UTC. You'll also find attached a revised draft preliminary conclusion for category C threshold + 1,2 which aims to incorporate the suggestions and comments that have been shared on the list. You are encouraged to share any further comments / edits on this revised draft with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda PPSAI WG Meeting 27 May at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Update from Transfers Sub-Team (Kathy & James) 3. Review / finalise conclusion for Category C threshold +1,2 (see revised draft attached) 4. Finalize conclusion for Category C Question 3 (see template attached) 5. Finalize conclusion for Category D Question 1 (see template attached) 6. Commence deliberations on Category D Question 2 (if time allows, see template attached) 7. Confirm next steps / next meeting

2 1

PPSAI WG -- questions for list
by Metalitz, Steven May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

24 92

ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts
by Don Blumenthal May 23, 2014

May 23, 2014

I expect that this announcement will interest many WG members. I am passing it along for people who are not on the ICANN News email list. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-05-22-en Don

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 20 May 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 20 May 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140520-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140520-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar%23mar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Tim Ruiz - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Justin Macy - BC James Bladel - RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Laura Jedeed - BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Holly Raiche - ALAC John Horton - BC Roy Balleste - NCUC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Libby Baney - BC Michele Neylon - RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG David Cake - NCSG Valeriya Sherman - IPC Susan Prosser- RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Paul McGrady - IPC Jennifer Standiford - RrSG Kristina Rosette - IPC Brian Winterfeldt - IPC Christian Dawson - ISPCP Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Don Moody - IPC Apologies: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Amr Elsadr - NCUC Tobias Sattler - RrSG Don Blumenthal - RySG Maria Farrell - NCUC ICANN staff: Marika Konings Amy Bivins Joe Catapano Terri Agnew ** 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 20 May 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 20 May 2014 steve metalitz:awaiting entry to audio bridge Paul McGrady:Good morning! Marika Konings:Same here... John Horton:Morning, all. Bladel:Wiating on the operator.... Val Sherman:good morning all Tim Ruiz:Good morning Michele Neylon:waiting .. Kathy K:Morning All! Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm on audio now too Terri Agnew:Kristina Rosette has joined Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined Terri Agnew:Brian Winterfeldt has joined Kiran Malancharuvil:I propose we use the GNSO guidelines to determine the level of consensus and the terms that the GNSO as carefully constructed Kiran Malancharuvil:Do NOT agree that leaving such a strong phrase in as a "placeholder" is appropriate. Sorry. Marika Konings:the GNSO WG Guidelines use the term 'most agree' or 'most support' - would that work? Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Kiran Malancharuvil:Marika, I still think we need to have a better determination of what the group really thinks first Kiran Malancharuvil:in addition to the language issue Volker Greimann:James+1, but we need a vote for that Kiran Malancharuvil:Because number of voices is not how consensus is determined John Horton:Marika, I would concur with Kiran that it would be ideal to use the GNSO guidelinesn to assess the level of support. John Horton:And I think we do need to have a better sense of exactly where the group is. Bladel:Not a vote necessarily, but a consensus test. Volker Greimann:fully agreed Bladel:ANd this particularl quesiton needs to be opened up to a larger audience (outside of ICANN, the consumers of these services.) Volker Greimann:We should use the correct terminology, when we know where we are Terri Agnew:Roy Balleste has joined Marika Konings:All, I've posted the relevant language from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on the right hand side Kiran Malancharuvil:I don't think it matters in what context it's being used. It's still not an appropriate term Marika Konings:The WG Guidelines also explain the process that is typically use to make a determination (which normally does NOT include voting) Michele Neylon:just delete the term "overwhelming" and move on Kristina Rosette:To be clear, I'm not suggesting we vote. I am suggesting that we ensure that all WG members who want to weigh in have done so or have indicated that their positions are still under development. Kiran Malancharuvil:No, because majority is also not potentially accurate Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined Michele Neylon:This is a massive waste of time Michele Neylon:we're 20 minutes into this call and we're arguing over two words Michele Neylon:in a single paragraph Alex Deacon:@michele +1 delete the term and move on. Kiran Malancharuvil:Not to us Michele, and frankly I'm getting sick of you labeling things that you don't feel are important as a waste of time. Michele Neylon:or put it to a vote Tim Ruiz:A consensus of WG members believed that proxy/privacy services should be available to all entities. Kiran Malancharuvil:It's not respectful in this environment. Kristina Rosette:Do we have consensus (sorry) that we should replace overwhelming majority with the corresponding consensus characterization. Kiran Malancharuvil:@Kristina, it's too early to determine consensus Michele Neylon:Maybe just put it to a vote Michele Neylon:or put brackets around the entire thing until we can put it to a vote Kristina Rosette:@Kiran: Got it. Perhaps we should bracket text that needs to be revisited. Kiran Malancharuvil:Probably a good idea, but don't want to include terms that may sway the issues in one direction or another Val Sherman:+1 Kristina Terri Agnew:Christian Dawson has joined Kathy K:Should there be a difference in the data fields to be displayed if the domain name is registered or used by a commercial entity? - is that your recommended rewording, Steve? steve metalitz:@Kathy, Yes for initial discussion. Michele Neylon:Kathy's snubbing me? :) Chris Pelling:Or as Mochele pointed out where does it start, where will it end,, ie what other "fields" will be worked into a whois service that already cant cope and is still not totally standard Chris Pelling:@Kathy you will have lots of additional fields - I think personally this is something that should not be added Holly Raiche:@Kathy +1 Tim Ruiz:I think at best, we could only recommend considering this or that the next time a WHOIS PDP or other WG considers changes to WHOIS. P/P services cannot enforce anything in the WHOIS. Chris Pelling:@Tim +1 Bladel:Agree with Kathy. Chris Pelling:@Kathy +1 Bladel:This is about how PP services use WHOIS, Bladel:THey do not control output. Tim Ruiz:Kathy is correct. Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa has joined Bladel:So a "partial" proxy? Bladel:I don't agree with leaving "hints" in WHOIS. Bladel:or if they have an SSL cert Libby Baney:I don't agree with Michele's assumption that people don't use WHOIS, rather just rely on the About Us/Contact section of a website. As noted in the paper I circulated, WHOIS is an important mechanism for consumers -- and having transparent WHOIS is consistent with the AoC for consumer trust Kiran Malancharuvil:WHOIS is an extremeley important tool for consumer protection Bladel:aka "net vigiliantes" Tim Ruiz:John, what does that have to do with C3? Stephanie Perrin:I would like to see the consumer research that supports the assertion that whois is actually being used extensively by consumers for consumer protection. I understand that governments who have not regulated e-commerce rely on it, but I have not found those studies indicating the average consumer is using it, I did check with a couple of my contacts in consumer affairs here isn Canada. Tim Ruiz:Kiran, waht Kathy K:+1 James, I was just looking for the Whois Review Team report section... Kathy K:It would be useful for us now. Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, are you asking me a question? Tim Ruiz:Sorry. Kiran, what does that have to do with C3? David Cake:There are a number of commercial services that might be legal in their jurisdiction, providing services as described, but controversial enough to want to use privacy or proxy services to deter harrassment. Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, it was in response to what was being discussed by John and MIchele Tim Ruiz:Ok, thanks. Kathy K:"Overall, awareness of WHOIS is low. When asked to find a website domain owner, most Users do not think to utilize the WHOIS site." - from Whois Review Team commissioned outside study Laura Jedeed:+1 Kiran Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy! Tim Ruiz:what is th Susan Prosser:+1 Kiran Tim Ruiz:Sorry again. What is the problem we are trying to solve? Why is commercial use of a private name bad? Tim Ruiz:No. Michele Neylon:Tim - cos it's um .. Michele Neylon:oh I don't know Michele Neylon:Kathy - thanks for that quote Kathy K:@Tim, I don't think commercial use is bad, nor do I see the vast majority of commercial users engaged directly with consumers. Most business use is business-to-business which is governed by entirely different rules. Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, I think the white paper might be worth reading if you're still unclear about why consumer protection advocates like myself are advocating our position Kathy K:+1 Volker - domain names are multi-use, and available for so many uses: listserves, FTP, websites, emails.... Stephanie Perrin:Excellent point Volker, re assets in bankruptcy. Kiran Malancharuvil:End use consumers still have a right to know who isbehind the B2B transactions. For example, I have a right to know who makes the processor in my computer even if they refuse to sell it directly to me. Kathy K:@Kiran: I have no idea who Fios/Verizon buys its fiber optic cable from - although it serves my house - and they would never let me see those contracts Volker Greimann:Kiran: Then go to your local government and ask them to legislate a requirement to put an imprint on the webpage Kiran Malancharuvil:but you would have the right to find out Volker Greimann:It worked VERY well in Europe Kathy K:+1 Tim Libby Baney:@Tim -- I think there is a difference between using a p/p service vs providing different (but transparent) contact information for domain names engaged in commercial activities Volker Greimann:no imprint on the page, don't do business Kiran Malancharuvil:@Volker, are you suggesting that I have no place in THIS process? Volker Greimann:not at all, but I am arguing that the right to know who you are doing business with belongs on the webpage, not the whois Kiran Malancharuvil:I disagree, and I have that right, and in my opinion, the obligation Libby Baney:@Volker -- how does that position square with the AoC? Kiran Malancharuvil:The respect level for divergent opinions in this group is so low. Kiran Malancharuvil:It's very discouraging. Kathy K:@Libby, I think it does square with the AOC Volker Greimann:as the AoC is on the way out, we will have to see... Tim Ruiz:Kiran, disagreement is not disrespect. Stephanie Perrin:The AoC does not and must not substitute for normal regulatory activity of governments. Kiran Malancharuvil:The tone of the disagreement is what I'm addressing Tim. Bladel:Didn't we have some other homework regarding Transfers & other transactions? Kathy K:Because final answers were not mandated by the AOC. Paul McGrady:Agree that a list of accredited providers makes sense. Volker Greimann:just checked, the AoC states: " enforcing its existing policy". I see an emphasis on "existing" there Bladel:Responsiveness doesn't guarantee you'll get the answer you want. :) Michele Neylon:exactly Michele Neylon:"Can I buy your domain for 10 euro" Michele Neylon:no - get lost Michele Neylon:"weh weh - I don't like that reply" Michele Neylon::) Chris Pelling:and more importantly lsat week, an answer to general joe may/will be different to that of LEA Chris Pelling:both in time and tone Michele Neylon:Chris - agreed Terri Agnew:Don Moody has joined Michele Neylon:An Garda Siochana tend to phone Paul McGrady:I would like to hear more about the transfer issue than the 2 minutes remaining would allow today. Can we get it on the list for next time? Michele Neylon:1 minute... Chris Pelling:Paul, just make sure we dont spend 20 minutes clarrifying "wording" last week it was 1 word, this week 2 words... John Horton:James, very late response on the "net vigilantes" point -- keep in mind it is sometimes customers too, who (in my world) got a drug that didn't work, and trying to figure out more information about the website they ordered from! :) So not just vigilantees... Bladel:Agree. Let's get it on the agenda for next time. Justin Macy:@Volker "Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. ... ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." Tim Ruiz:Thanks Steve! Bye all. Kathy K:Tx Steve and All! Bladel:thx all.

1 0

Cat C draft template
by Don Blumenthal May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

Hello, Steve, Graeme, Marika, Mary, and I have gone back and forth a few times developing a template to capture Category C discussions. We see a lot of agreement within the WG but capturing the disagreements properly presented challenges. As a result, I am sending draft template language covering the threshold through C.2 instead of the usual completed grid. Please review it carefully and respond on the list as much as possible. Discussion tomorrow hopefully will focus on C.3 and D.1. That’s easy for me to say, as I will be on an airplane tomorrow morning (again). :) Graeme also has to miss the call. Regards, Don

2 4