May 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
by Marika Konings May 19, 2014

May 19, 2014

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

1 0

Obligation to Respond to Inquiries
by James M. Bladel May 15, 2014

May 15, 2014

Team: Today we discussed the question of whether or not P/P services should be required to respond to inquiries/reveal requests. I raised the idea that we could use something like the TEAC as a model. Below, I've pasted the applicable text from the transfer policy (IRTP). The TEAC model applies to our issues in that: 1. The accredited registrar is required to respond promptly 2. There is no guaranteed outcome as a result of the inquiry, and 3. There is an understanding that ICANN will sanction registrars who do not respond, as well as registrars abusing TEAC for non-emergencies. However, as Michele and others point out, the TEAC model falls short of our needs in a few key areas: 1. The TEAC is intended to address time-sensitive inter-registrar transactions, not for the general public to raise complaints. 2. Our work would require a more general purpose point of contact for use by third parties, LEA, etc. 3. The issues raised will be less time sensitive, reasonable response times would likely be measured in business days rather than hours. 4. There would be some penalties for abuse of the contact (e.g. Blocking future requests) Thanks- J. ________________________________ Transfer Emergency Action Contact Registrars will establish a Transfer Emergency Action Contact ("TEAC") for urgent communications relating to transfers. The goal of the TEAC is to quickly establish a real-time conversation between registrars (in a language that both parties can understand) in an emergency. Further actions can then be taken towards a resolution, including initiating existing (or future) transfer dispute or undo processes. Communications to TEACs will be reserved for use by ICANN-Accredited Registrars,gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN Staff. The TEAC point of contact may be designated as a telephone number or some other real-time communication channel and will be recorded in, and protected by, the ICANN RADAR system. Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a reasonable period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain. Messages sent via the TEAC communication channel must generate a non-automated response by a human representative of the Gaining Registrar. The person or team responding must be capable and authorized to investigate and address urgent transfer issues. Responses are required within 4 hours of the initial request, although final resolution of the incident may take longer. The losing registrar will report failures to respond to a TEAC communication to ICANNCompliance and the registry operator. Failure to respond to a TEAC communication may result in a transfer-undo in accordance with Section 6 of this policy and may also result in further action by ICANN, up to and including non-renewal or termination of accreditation. Both parties will retain correspondence in written or electronic form of any TEACcommunication and responses, and share copies of this documentation with ICANNand the registry operator upon request. This documentation will be retained in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Users of the TEAC communication channel should report non-responsive Registrars to ICANN. Additionally, ICANN may conduct periodic tests of the Registrar TEAC communication channel in situations and a manner deemed appropriate to ensure that registrars are indeed responding to TEAC messages.

3 3

Commercial Use - White Paper
by Libby Baney May 14, 2014

May 14, 2014

All -- I appreciate the dialogue the group has begun regarding WHOIS transparency for entities engaged in commercial activity. With the hope of encouraging discussion on the merits of the issue, I am pleased to share the attached white paper: *Commercial Use of Domain Names: An Analysis of Multiple Jurisdictions. * As you'll see, the paper addresses the following question: Should domain name registrants who sell products or services on their websites should be able to conceal their identity and location in the domain name registration? The paper argues that they should not. Rather, the authors find that requiring domain name registrants engaged in commercial activity to provide transparent WHOIS information falls squarely in line both with ICANN’s commitment to Internet users and existing global public policy to keep businesses honest and consumers safe. Accordingly, the paper recommends an approach that balances personal privacy and consumer protection rights. On the one hand, domain names used for non-commercial purposes (e.g., personal blogs) should, the authors believe, be permitted to utilize privacy or proxy registration. This reflects a fundamental right to privacy of domain name registrants not engaged in commerce. However, the authors do not believe the same right exists for registrants of websites engaged in commerce – a conclusion borne out by our research. It goes without saying that this group is divided on the issue of requiring WHOIS transparency for sites engaged in commercial activity. As some in the PPSAI WG have commented, these issues may be complicated but they nonetheless merit our full consideration. We hope the attached white paper stimulates further thinking and group discussion on the issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow. Libby -- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com P: 202-499-2296

12 19

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 13 May 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 13 May 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140513-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140513-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: Luc Seufer - RrSG Tim Ruiz - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Justin Macy - BC David Heasley - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Christian Dawson - ISPCP Griffin Barnett - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Laura Jedeed - BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Holly Raiche - ALAC Tatiana Khramstova - RrSG John Horton - BC Jim Bikoff - IPC Don Blumenthal - RySG Roy Balleste - NCUC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Libby Baney - BC Michele Neylon - RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG Frank Michlick - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG David Cake - NCSG Valeriya Sherman - IPC Apologies: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Amr Elsadr - NCUC Susan Prosser- RrSG Tobias Sattler - RrSG Don Moody - IPC ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins 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/> 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 13 May 2014: Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 13th May 2014 Bladel:Dialing in... Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined Terri Agnew:James I have added you to attendance list Kathy K:Tx Don! Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined Terri Agnew:Justin Macy has joined Frank Michlick:Sorry - just watching a the moment still in a call. Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined Kiran Malancharuvil:I think it's still a mischaracterization to call it an overwhelming majority, especially since a lot of the voices are in the same SG. If you are going to throw around the term consensus, we need to actually parse out who (and what SG or C) is saying what. Kiran Malancharuvil:and that goes for both "sides" of the issue Don Blumenthal:More than one group has a lot of voices in favor of No Kiran Malancharuvil:and more than one group has a lot of Yes's or please explore DOn John Horton:Don, I'd agree with Kiran. I think "consensus" generally means "no significant disagreement." I wouldn't say that's the case here. Don Blumenthal:Definitions of "consensus" don't have the consensus you suggest Kiran Malancharuvil:I especially think it's inappropriate to call consensus before we explored Libby's good work which was circulated in response to a request for information last week. Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Michele Neylon:This is out of scope Michele Neylon:ICANN is not a consumer protection agency John Horton:Merriam-Webster defines "consensus" as: : a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group Michele Neylon:John - GNSO has consensus defined John Horton:Ah -- link to definition? Marika Konings:@John - in the GNSO context, consensus is defined as 'Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree' John Horton:Ah, thanks. Michele Neylon:John - Marika can give you a link Marika Konings:this is contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures (Annex 1 - GNSO WG Guidelines) Marika Konings:I'll dig out the link now Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks to IOC/RCRC, I'm well aware of the GNSO definition and still don't think it's appropriate in this context John Horton:Right. I appreciate the definition, but I agree it shouldn't be a consensus. Marika Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-26mar14-en. pdf - section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions Chris Pelling:Totally agree Stephanie Perrin:+1 Michele Marika Konings:And just for the record, I'm not suggesting that there is or isn't consensus according to the definition ;-) Kiran Malancharuvil:The AoC demands accountability to consumers Marika Konings:The process for making that determination is also outlined in that same section, by the way. Chris Pelling:Michele hit the nail on the head, we are here to define, not to state "who" and "who doesnt" / cant use it Libby Baney:Good point Don re GNSO charter Libby Baney:Yes, you're right - the paper addresses commercial "activity" not commercial "entities" Bladel:Can someone show me in our Charter where we are authorized to create policy regarding content of website(s)? Don Blumenthal:I will not in the margins that not all domains have web sites. How can/should their purposes be determined by outside review Luc Seufer:@Bladel can we extend that question to ICANN by-laws? Kathy K:Threshold question revisited: Currently, proxy/privacy services are available to companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals. Should there be any change to this aspect of the current system in the new accreditation standards? Don Blumenthal:Content isn't in our remit; category issues and how they might work are. Michele Neylon:So how the hell are we meant to know what our clients do with their email? Michele Neylon:assuming the domain is only for email Bladel:Indeed. Why does spam still exist? Don Blumenthal:I asked you first. :) Michele Neylon:Bladel - well I may have found a way of monetising that :) Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined Kiran Malancharuvil:possibly on mute... Kiran Malancharuvil:having computer issues Kiran Malancharuvil:will call in, no worries please move on David Cake:My apologies for turning up so late. Kathy K:+1 Holly David Cake:FWIW, I'm a pretty strong no on C2. Terri Agnew:Val Sherman has joined John Horton:+1 on Kiran's comments. Libby Baney:+1 to Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil:I also do not think it's a "massive waste of time" Libby Baney:@Kathy - I agree, more time would be valuable Libby Baney:@kathy - we intended to address the sole/mom&pop businesses in the paper. Happy to have more discussion on this point Kathy K:But Libby - commercial groups use proxy/privacy services Kathy K:They have since the beginning, and they use their lawyers in huge numbers. Kathy K:(for registration of domain names) Kiran Malancharuvil:@James - a question for the ages. we've been trying for outreach on so many issues! Kathy K:Why are the deemed unworthy now? Justin Macy:Re: Scope. Each GNSO question in our charter uses the "using the domain name for [X]" syntax. I don't see a way to read the use of the domain name out of our remit. Kiran Malancharuvil:I would support that Steve. Commercial entities should be allowed to use p/p for non-commercial purposes John Horton:Steve, don't want to jump the queue, but happy to suggest an answer there based on the paper. Libby Baney:@Steve re timing of distinction, see page 26-27 of the paper Libby Baney:@John, feel free to chime in Libby Baney:@Stephanie - I'd welcome and appreciate your edits. You've been very helpful o these issues Kiran Malancharuvil:Why would we be uncomfortable with research presented (in response to a request) Kiran Malancharuvil:and can you please submit your response rather than just ask for it to be taken off the table? Kathy K:Steve, could you please share again the view of the IPC or CSG that you posted at the end of meeting last week (in the chat room, I think) Bladel:@Don - Agree. Kiran Malancharuvil:There hasn't been a consensus developed in the IPC that I'm aware of Stephanie Perrin:Unfortunately, being free to submit anything, means we are going to spend the rest of our lives here. Bladel:But then the paper(s) should be treated on par with any ohter comment submitted to the list. steve metalitz:Agree with Don that contributions like the paper are welcomed. Although I do not agree with its conclusions. Bladel:which was my opnion. Stephanie Perrin:To what extent does ICANN have ambitions to regulate all activity on the internet Libby Baney:@John - agreed, welcome feedback steve metalitz:The IPC osition is set forth in the template for C1. Libby Baney:@all - re the paper being "dropped" on the group, I just want to note for the record that the group essentially gave us a week to provide argument as to why the distinction is worthwhile... we got the paper out as fast as possible in response to last week's discussion Kathy K:Tx Steve John Horton:Right -- I should have mentioned that as well, Libby. Kiran Malancharuvil:It's REALLY disturbing the level of hyperbole that exists here in an effort to attempt to silence discussion on this issue (and it would be disturbing on any issue). "We will be here for the rest of our lives" or we are attempting to "regulate all activity" Kiran Malancharuvil:discussion, in the form of a papers or discussion should ALWAYS be welcome Kiran Malancharuvil:that's the nature of ICANN Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Libby... what a shame that you were asked to provide it and then chastised for following through Libby Baney:@thanks for the support Kiran Stephanie Perrin:Frankly, Idont regard regulate all activity as hyperbole. AS MIchele said earlier, determining the ongoing purpose and use of domain names or email used by registrants strikes me as an interminable exercise, new every morning as it were. So given that task falling on the shoulders of the registrars, either they give up on that line of business, or they lose money providing the purpose detection function. Don Blumenthal:Kiran, overstatement is part of the process from all sides in any contentioius ICANN Don Blumenthal:discussion Kiran Malancharuvil:I understand that Don, but that doesn't mean I have to be okay with it. Don Blumenthal:Stephanie and John, please clear your raised hands. John Horton:Oops. Thanks, Don. Michele Neylon:Why would we reveal to an out of jurisdiction request? Michele Neylon:respond - sure Val Sherman:+1 @Steve Michele Neylon:but I don't see why I should give the Chinese government my clients' details Michele Neylon:or did I mishear him? Luc Seufer:because there may be another ICANN meeting held in China in the future. And we don't want to lose our chair Luc Seufer:;-) Don Blumenthal:I appreciate it. :) Bladel:California? :) Luc Seufer:The UK? steve metalitz:we're talking here about whether they respond ,not whether they answer yes. That will be a topic for e.g. reveal. Kathy K:Is there any concern or opposition to posting a point of contact to the world for p/p contact? Kathy K:Tx All Luc Seufer:Thanks David Cake:Thank you Don, and everyone. Michele Neylon:kathy - short answer - no Darcy Southwell:Thank you!

1 0

Transfers Subteam Reporting Back
by Kathy Kleiman May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Hi All, This is the subteam of James and Kathy reporting back to the WG on the issue we were assigned - an outline for protecting privacy in transfer situations. Our work is a one-pager that I have pasted below (but perhaps easier to read in the attached, formatted version). Overall, we think there are a narrow set of issues for the WG to look at, and staightforward work to be done -- within existing transfer rules -- to help improve privacy during domain name transfers. Our thoughts are below, and attached. We were not tasked with solving the problem, but laying out a path towards evaluating it in a fairly short amount of time. Best, Kathy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _**_ * * *PPSAI -- Category B -- Maintenance of Privacy / Proxy Services * *- Question 3* *Registrar Transfer and Options for PPSAI Working Group* ** *(A few questions to consider to help Registrants seeking privacy during the transfer process)* *__* *1.**_WDRP, Renewal Notifications, etc._* 1.1.The WG/Subteam should consider requirements for P/P services to relay "ICANN-Critical" communications from the Registrar to the P/P customer. 1.2.These would include WDRP annual reminders, and renewal/expiry notifications required under the ERRP. 1.3.Other messages from the registrar might also be designated as critical, e.g. status changes to contacts or nameservers. *2.**_Inter-Registrar Transfers (IRTP)_* 2.1.The WG/Subteam should consider scenarios where either the gaining or losing registrar employs a P/P service, or both. 2.2.The four use cases can be arranged in a grid: A. Non-Private to Non-Private (Current IRTP) B. Private to Non-Private C. Non-Private to Private D. Private to Private A.No P/P service involvement, (status quo under current IRTP) B.Losing registrar has affiliated P/P, Gaining does not. C.Gaining registrar has affiliated P/P, Losing does not. D.Both Gaining and Losing registrars have affiliated P/P which the customer has opted to use. 2.3.The right-side column (B & D) would require some method for registrars and their affiliated P/P services to exchange protected contact data, such as a hash function. This exchange would provide additional protection for the transfer of the domain name also requires transfer of the AUTHINFO code. *3.**_Transfers in the event of a failed Registrar_* 3.1.Existing IRTP almost sufficiently cover this scenario. 3.2.Registrant and underlying P/P data is currently included in data escrow. 3.3.If both files are passed on to a gaining registrar with an affiliated proxy or privacy service and used as a basis for registration in the new p/p service, than the privacy of customers would continue to be protected even as numerous Registrants pass from a failed or de-accredited Registrar to another Registrar.

1 0

Tomorrow's (May 13) meeting
by Don Blumenthal May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Good morning, here at least, You should have seen the message that Mary sent with tomorrow’s agenda and templates. This note is to provide information on the plan for the call and do an informal temporary template update. I reviewed the mp3s and transcripts from the last two weeks to catch up, and have been in touch with Graeme and Steve. It seems clear that the consensus on the calls was against differentiating among p/p registrants, aka a support for No. It seems logical as an extension that answers to adding markers in new Whois fields also is No. If no categorization is required up front at registration, how can we suggest that designations are necessary when information goes into the databases soon after? We will have time to revisit this discussion in different ways during our consideration of other questions and when converting the templates to a formal document. However, as this issue is central to p/p matters, we will spend more time on it tomorrow in order to give people who didn’t participate on calls recently a chance to make their cases. While “didn’t participate” doesn’t apply, I will note that FWD and LegitScript already have given us points for discussion in the message that Libby Baney sent earlier. Finally, as a result of a conversation at last week’s conference and a point that Mary made in a message to the Chairs this morning, I will remind all that we are looking at both privacy and proxy issues. So far we haven’t distinguished between them in our discussions. Should we for this matter? Talk to you tomorrow (for a change), Don

1 0

Agenda and document templates for the next call on Tuesday 13 May
by Mary Wong May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached the proposed templates for Category C Question 3 and Category D Question 1. The templates for Category C Questions 1 & 2 (i.e. those circulated previously and for which the threshold question was discussed) are unchanged and can be found on the WG wiki together with the new documents: https://community.icann.org/x/D4zhAg. We will update those templates upon the WG¹s sign-off on those discussions. For the meeting, the proposed agenda is: 1. Roll Call/SOI Updates 2. Conclusion of Deliberations on Category C 3. Commencement of Deliberations on Category D, Question 1 4. Next Steps/Next Meeting 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

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 06 May 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 06 May 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140506-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: Luc Seufer - RrSG Graeme Bunton - RrSG Tim Ruiz - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Kathy Kleiman - RySG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Justin Macy - BC David Heasley - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Phil Marano - IPC Christian Dawson - ISPCP Griffin Barnett - IPC Valeriya Sherman - IPC Alex Deacon - IPC Laura Jedeed - BC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Carlton Samuels - At-Large Kristina Rosette - IPC Holly Raiche - ALAC Tatiana Khramstova - RrSG Maria Farrell - NCUC John Horton - BC Michael Palage - RySG Jim Bikoff - IPC Apologies: Don Blumenthal - RySG Roy Balleste - NCUC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Susan Prosser- RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins 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/> 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, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 06 May 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th May 2014 Kathy K:Echoes... Kathy K:Good morning, All Paul McGrady:Good morning! Nathalie Peregrine:Paul LcGrady and Darcy Southwell have joined Nathalie Peregrine:McGrady, apologies Paul McGrady:I like LGrady. Sounds French & sophisticated! Nathalie Peregrine:Fitting like a glove I am sure :) Bladel:"predicate question" maybe? Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Osvaldo, I have noted you for attendance Mary Wong:We will note the reason for the "threshold question" in the draft report when the time comes, if that helps. John Horton:I don't want to jump the queue, but happy to respond if helpful! Graeme Bunton:thanks John Nathalie Peregrine:Kristina Rosette has joined the call Kristina Rosette:Greetings! Apologies for being late. Tim Ruiz:Responding to abuse, yes, but not determining what abuse is. And whois is not content or use. Tim Ruiz:+1 James. What is the problem we are trying to solve? Kathy K:The cost-benefit analysis makes sense Bladel:@Kathy: Cost-Benefit. And a clear understanding that this is the ONLY way to address it. Stephanie Perrin:risk Mitigation, that is the word I was groping for... Kathy K:@Bladel: Agreed Bladel:I agree with Mike P. Which might mean that ICANN is doomed if it's taking on global content issues.... Luc Seufer:Or we could also point out the lazyness of "complainants"... Graeme Bunton:Lets queue please Luc Seufer:(apaprently a whois request on a domain name is easier than one on an IP address) Bladel:PICs are not automatically incompabilble with P/P services. steve metalitz:Agree we should queue rather than debate ad hoc Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - congratulations Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the call Carlton Samuels:Howdy everybody Kathy K:Hi Carlton! Kathy K:Tx Holly - the Seattle Film Festival is very exciting! Carlton Samuels:Hi Kathy, good to see you Kathy K:+1 Stephanie - and here's to the girls' schools in Pakistan Val Sherman:+1 to girls' schools in Pakistan! Stephanie Perrin:+1 Tim, give small business choice Carlton Samuels:@TIM; +1 on how most regulators view id of commercial operators. maria farrell:I'm in the queue also Kathy K:+ Nathalie Peregrine:please mute all mics and phones when not speaking Phil Marano:Still getting a bad echo. Phil Marano:ok Kathy K:+1 Tim on the loss of domain names if you violate the terms of use Carlton Samuels:Apropos, FWIW, I cannot see a compelling reason to deny P/P services to any entity, including commercial ones, so long as the rules apply across the board maria farrell:+1 Carlton Bladel:I don't even know if I speak for my employer half the time.... :) Osvaldo Novoa:+1 Carlton Kathy K:+1 Holly Val Sherman:+1 Holly steve metalitz:@Graeme, IPC's position, as stated in our submission, is that the answer to the threshold question should be "no." Tim Ruiz:Speaking for myself, the answer to the threshold question should be No. Kathy K:And the NCSG's position on the threshold question, as stated in our submission is also 'no." Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1, this is the situation in some common law jurisdictions. IOn can be a sole proprietor trading in your own name Holly Raiche:I think we are saying it is toohard - address the response Kathy K:subgroup?? Bladel:@Kathy - our homework. :) Carlton Samuels:BTW, pardon my joining late, ID the Chair please? Kathy K:ah hah :-) Graeme Bunton:Myself, Graeme Bunton Bladel:I can update the WG on our work on this topic, if desired. Carlton Samuels:Aaahh, hi Graeme. Well done sah Tim Ruiz:This subgroup does not mean that the WG will be held up in any way from moving forward on the other questions, right? Kathy K:@Tim, no delay to the WG. Carlton Samuels:@Transfers: FWIW the EWG had extensive discussions on these various states of data pre and post trnasfer Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1. Key objectives are to preserve information and extend choice Carlton Samuels:...extend choice.. Paul McGrady:Kathy/James, thanks for looking into this! Bladel:Sorry, I mis spoke. maria farrell:old hand, sorry! Tim Ruiz:Thanks Graeme! Bye all. steve metalitz:thanks graeme. Carlton Samuels:Oh thanks Kathy. That was going to be my question for Graeme Luc Seufer:@Kathy because ICANN Kathy K:@Luc :-) Tim Ruiz:But only on the threshold question. Otherwise, it is then not really a threshold question, right? Kathy K:Tx for chairing Graeme! Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: Except for fixing questions that might have implications for content. We should not be going down that road Carlton Samuels:Thnaks Graeme Kathy K:Agreed Carlton! Bladel:Thanks, folks. Phil Marano:Thank you! Luc Seufer:Merci Graeme

1 0

Updated Cat C Q 1 template and agenda for Tuesday meeting
by Mary Wong May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

Dear all, Attached please find an updated template for Cat C Q 1. The only addition to the initial draft is a short paragraph that attempts to summarize the scope of the WG¹s discussion on the Threshold Question to date you will find this at the bottom of page 2 and into the top of page 3 of the attached document. The proposed agenda for our next meeting this Tuesday is: 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Continue discussion of threshold question to Category C 3. Commence deliberations on Category C Question 1 4. Next steps/next meeting As usual, we will update the WG wiki accordingly. 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. *

4 4

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

May 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 8 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> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html. If you are interested to join the next meeting on 8 May 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 0