September 2014 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Compilation of P/P provider responses
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows: 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful? 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you¹d like to add to a response you¹d provided previously, please send it along and I¹ll make sure it gets added to this document. Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg. 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

9 11

REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 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 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 4 September 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 2

Please select TWO topics from this list for the WG F2F session on 10 Oct 2014
by Mary Wong Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

Dear WG members, After consultation with the WG chairs, we would like to propose the following as topics that we thought would benefit from further and more in-depth discussion during the WG¹s upcoming face-to-face facilitated session in Los Angeles on Friday 10 October. Please reply (off list to me is fine) with your top two choices of preferred topics note that the last option also allows anyone to add a topic (based on the group¹s Preliminary Conclusions and templates to date, and following the Charter questions and agreed categories A-G) that is not specifically listed below. Staff will compile a list of the top three topics selected by the most WG members for discussion at the 10 October session. > 1. What rights/responsibilities and obligations should be communicated by P/P > service providers to customers/registrants with regard to transfers and > renewals of domain name registrations? (from Category B Question 3 see > attached report from the Transfers Issues sub-team (James and Kathy); the WG > Template including Preliminary Conclusions can be reviewed at > https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) > > 2. Further discussion on Category E Relay (see WG Templates including > Preliminary Conclusions at https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg; specifically, > the three remaining ³open questions², i.e.: > >> (a) Should providers be required to forward hard copy notices to >> registrants/customers, on request, in cases where electronic communications >> are known to be undeliverable? >> (b) Should providers be permitted to charge a reasonable fee to forward >> non-electronic communications that incur a cost to do so (this could include >> monetary costs such as charges for registered mail and/or other resource >> costs such as man-hours to review/strip out personal information from a >> communication)? >> (c) If a provider chooses not to forward an allegation of illegal activity, >> should there be an obligation for a provider to inform a requestor when the >> provider does not forward its request? > > 3. Further discussion on Category F Reveal (specific questions TBD depending > on extent of WG discussions between now and 10 October; see draft WG Templates > and current Preliminary Conclusions at > https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) > > 4. What aspects of the current temporary P/P specification in the 2013 RAA > should be retained and/or expanded for the accreditation program? What is not > in the current specification but should be? (See > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri… > y-proxy) > > 5. What are the business practices that a P/P provider should disclose to > potential and actual customers, as part of the accreditation program? > > 6. Any other suggestions not already on this list? > We attach also a suggested proposed agenda for the day including proposed ³ground rules² that have been found to have been extremely useful for focusing discussions and a document on Collaborative Reminders prepared by our professional facilitators that similarly are intended to facilitate useful constructive discussion and outcomes based on the objectives of our session. On behalf of the WG chairs, we look forward to your feedback on the topics for our LA discussion. Please indicate your choices as soon as possible and in any event by this Friday 3 October. Thank you! 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 >

9 14

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please select TWO topics from this list for the WG F2F session on 10 Oct 2014
by Darcy Southwell Oct. 3, 2014

Oct. 3, 2014

Thank you, Mary. I vote for #2 and #3. Best regards, Darcy Southwell Darcy Southwell Director, Registrar Compliance | The Endurance International Group Mobile +1.503.453.7305 | darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com | Skype: darcy.enyeart From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, September 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Please select TWO topics from this list for the WG F2F session on 10 Oct 2014 Dear WG members, After consultation with the WG chairs, we would like to propose the following as topics that we thought would benefit from further and more in-depth discussion during the WG¹s upcoming face-to-face facilitated session in Los Angeles on Friday 10 October. Please reply (off list to me is fine) with your top two choices of preferred topics note that the last option also allows anyone to add a topic (based on the group¹s Preliminary Conclusions and templates to date, and following the Charter questions and agreed categories A-G) that is not specifically listed below. Staff will compile a list of the top three topics selected by the most WG members for discussion at the 10 October session. > 1. What rights/responsibilities and obligations should be communicated by P/P > service providers to customers/registrants with regard to transfers and > renewals of domain name registrations? (from Category B Question 3 see > attached report from the Transfers Issues sub-team (James and Kathy); the WG > Template including Preliminary Conclusions can be reviewed at > https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) > > 2. Further discussion on Category E Relay (see WG Templates including > Preliminary Conclusions at https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg; specifically, > the three remaining ³open questions², i.e.: > >> (a) Should providers be required to forward hard copy notices to >> registrants/customers, on request, in cases where electronic communications >> are known to be undeliverable? >> (b) Should providers be permitted to charge a reasonable fee to forward >> non-electronic communications that incur a cost to do so (this could include >> monetary costs such as charges for registered mail and/or other resource >> costs such as man-hours to review/strip out personal information from a >> communication)? >> (c) If a provider chooses not to forward an allegation of illegal activity, >> should there be an obligation for a provider to inform a requestor when the >> provider does not forward its request? > > 3. Further discussion on Category F Reveal (specific questions TBD depending > on extent of WG discussions between now and 10 October; see draft WG Templates > and current Preliminary Conclusions at > https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg) > > 4. What aspects of the current temporary P/P specification in the 2013 RAA > should be retained and/or expanded for the accreditation program? What is not > in the current specification but should be? (See > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri… > y-proxy) > > 5. What are the business practices that a P/P provider should disclose to > potential and actual customers, as part of the accreditation program? > > 6. Any other suggestions not already on this list? > We attach also a suggested proposed agenda for the day including proposed ³ground rules² that have been found to have been extremely useful for focusing discussions and a document on Collaborative Reminders prepared by our professional facilitators that similarly are intended to facilitate useful constructive discussion and outcomes based on the objectives of our session. On behalf of the WG chairs, we look forward to your feedback on the topics for our LA discussion. Please indicate your choices as soon as possible and in any event by this Friday 3 October. Thank you! 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 > _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

3 3

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 30 September 2014 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 30, 2014

Sept. 30, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 30 September 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140930-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep 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 Graeme Bunton – RrSG Griffin Barnett – IPC Frank Michlick – Individual Don Blumenthal – RySG David Heasley-IPC Jim Bikoff-IPC Chris Pelling – RrSG Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG Sarah Wyld – RrSG Victoria Scheckler - IPC James Bladel – RrSG Val Sherman – IPC Todd Williams – IPC Keith Kupferschmid-IPC Amr Elsadr-NCUC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Phil Corwin-BC Kristina Rosette – IPC Phil Marano – IPC Kiran Malancharuvil-IPC Theo Geurts – RrSG Susan Kawaguchi – BC David Hughes – IPC Justin Macy – BC Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Paul McGrady - IPC Sean McInerney – no SOI David Cake-NCSG Libby Baney-BC Michael Palage - RySG Alex Deacon – IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG Apologies : Susan Prosser – RrSG Michele Neylon – RrSG Luc Seufer – RrSG Christian Dawson – ISPCP Carlton Samuels – At-Large Holly Raiche – ALAC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings 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 30 September 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG meeting of 30 September 2014! Chris Pelling:afternoon all Theo Geurts:afternoon Chris Graeme Bunton:Hello all Darcy Southwell:Hello! Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all! vicky sheckler:hi Don Blumenthal:Be there is a minute. Phone issues again. Paul McGrady:Good morning everyone. Val Sherman:Good morning all Don Blumenthal:I can hear through the PC. Whjy not start the recording and do roll call. Nathalie Peregrine:Don, the operator is dialing out to you shortly Kristina Rosette:Apologies for being late. Don Blumenthal:I'm on the line. Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Eslsadr has joined the call Mary Wong:We've tried to clarify in this updated document that the idea wasn't to not allow phones, but to minimize phone use (ie doesn't mean you can't receive messages, just asking that if you do to please step outside for that brief moment) Kristina Rosette:Thanks, Don. Kathy:Don Kathy:oops - don't we have until Friday? Kristina Rosette:For those of us who will have to leave at 3 (Michele & me, perhaps others) for the SO/AC leaders meeting, will we have a later opportunity to provide input on the topics discussed from 3 PM on at the F2F? Kristina Rosette:I'll take my answer off line, later. Kristina Rosette:thanks. Marika Konings:@Kristina - as not everyone will be able to participate in the meeting, whether it is in person or remote, the idea has always been that any conclusions would always go back to the list for any comments / suggestions from those that were not able to attend. Kristina Rosette:super, thanks, Marika Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the call Kathy:@Mary, can you put that time/date into chart? Kathy:chat Mary Wong:Wednesday 15 October, 8.15-9.45 a.m. Kristina Rosette:@Mary & Marika: I'll miss whatever part of that Wednesday session conflicts with the GAC session on geonames. Mary Wong:@Kristina, thanks - we've been trying to minimize conflicts but that's getting harder and harder! Kristina Rosette:@Mary: understood (and agreed) Nathalie Peregrine:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined the call Kathy:@Mary: can we add "inquiry into freedom of expression+ concerns" to Notes? Tx! Chris Pelling:can the dics be released please so I can move it now I have made it alrger ? Chris Pelling:docs* Mary Wong:@Chris, the doc is unsync'ed so you should be able to move it up and down and enlarge with the + button. Chris Pelling:@Mary, up and down yes, not left to right Chris Pelling:The Hand (PAN) isnt working here Marika Konings:Chris, do note that the document is only one page Chris Pelling:@Mariika, unless it is a single coloum I cant see it Chris Pelling:http://gyazo.com/f17169baacc6ac3c0a4308c3a4137fd0 Chris Pelling:thats what I see Chris Pelling:sorryu for the white on black Kristina Rosette:um, well, if they don't respond, we don't see anything. seriously. Paul McGrady:Those stats are hard to come by because if they don't respond we don't know why they don't respond. Graeme Bunton:knowing how many have no response is still useful Marika Konings:@Chris - not sure what is going on but we are getting you the link so you can download the document. Chris Pelling:aha - perfect Graeme Bunton:we need to understand the volume of the issue from the requestor side as well Marika Konings:@Chris - please try if this works: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49355456/Cat%20F%20Questio… <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49355456/Cat%20F%20Questio…> &modificationDate=1412087616515&api=v2 Kathy:Oh good, not immediately! Chris Pelling:bingo Marika :) :) steve metalitz:@Graeme, why? What would that tell you if you knew how many requests entity X sends to all providers? Amr Elsadr:I wonder if there is any legislation that may influence a p/p provider's ability to reveal customer data to a 3rd party or even LE. Do we need data on this as well? Bladel:@Steve: If there is an absence of data, that is still useful. WE would better understand where the "holes" are. Chris Pelling:To be honest Steve I think it would be good to receive some stats from the requestors side so we can see how big a problem this is from your side Kathy:@Stephanie, Amr and All, can we ask Staff to look into how disclosures to third parties are handled under some data protection laws? Kristina Rosette:I don't mean this to sound snarky, but I, for one, wouldn't be spending 3 hours a week on this WG, if the issue wasn't considered a problem. Keith Kupferschmid:There are many more trademark and copyright owners than p/p services. thus, any information we would get from the IP owner side whiel somewhat helpfuil would be less helpful thaninfo we could get from the p/p services. Kathy:It's in scope Kristina Rosette:I have a different question: I seem to recall that a call or 2 ago, several of the providers expressed surprise (or I took it that way) that there are providers not affiliated with registrars. Has the RrSG been tracking any data? Stephanie Perrin:As a followup to my comments, it would be useful if p/P providers have had complaints to data commissioners after a reveal/disclosure/publication, if they could share the results of the investigations.... Chris Pelling:I doubt it @Kristina, but, I am certainly not the person to ask re rrsg keeping stats etc Bladel:If they aren't affilated, how would the RrSG be able to track data? Bladel:Honestly, the only unaffilated services we encounter are the folks who "spoof" these services by copying WHOIS data. Kristina Rosette:@James: That's my point. If most are affiliated with registrars (which was my takeaway from that conversation), I was wondering if the RrSG had tracked any data or put out a request for it. Kathy:@Kristina, do you think we could get data from the IPC/BC about requests for Reveal and Relay? Kathy:Such data would be very valuable to better understand what is happening Kristina Rosette:@Kathy: We can certainly get the word out. Kristina Rosette:Speaking only for IPC, of course. Kathy:@Kristina, tx you! Bladel:Maybe...sounds like two major consumers of these mechanisms prefer "Relay" Kathy:@Don, I have the same sense --- that Reveal may not now be as important as Relay Kathy:I can't hear Vicky :-( Susan Kawaguchii:No we should be discussing a standard reveal process Susan Kawaguchii:but we should not be doing so thinking it may result in wholesal release of a registrants contact information Kristina Rosette:@Susan: +1 (as to standard reveal) Kiran Malancharuvil:James, I wouldn't say we "prefer" relay insofar as that might be interpreted as us saying we don't value good policy on reveal. we are just saying that we historically use relay because that's the most appropriate way to deal with the kind of requests we make. Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 to Susan Val Sherman:+1 Susan and Vicky -- we should discuss what a standard reveal process should look like Bladel:More data is never a bad thing, even if it is acknowledged to be incomplete. Keith Kupferschmid:Agree with Val and Vicki, we need to continue our discussion of what a standard reveal process would look like. Yes, we need data but I think we can continue the discussion while we collect this data. Graeme Bunton:a few hands left up i think Bladel:I'm sorry, I have to drop. Thanks all. Chris Pelling:I am sorry to sound blunt, but the type of data being requested is NOT easy to simply pull out Paul McGrady:Sorry for keeping my hand up! Chris Pelling:I am probably lucky, I can count on one hand how many we have had Graeme Bunton:Thanks Paul Chris Pelling:BUT some providers cant Mary Wong:@kathy, right - I'm just suggesting that for Publication the group may be closer than we'd thought. But we may still need to discuss Disclosure Kathy:@Mary - takedown too! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Kathy:It's an option we have discussed a lot Theo Geurts:thanks all Darcy Southwell:Thanks, bye.

1 0

Please confirm - Participation in PPSAI F2F WG meeting on 10 October
by Marika Konings Sept. 30, 2014

Sept. 30, 2014

For those of you that have not done so yet, could you please let me know off-list whether you are planning to participate in person or remotely in the PPSAI F2F WG meeting in Los Angeles on 10 October so we have an accurate headcount and can make arrangements accordingly. Also, if you are planning to participate remotely and need a dial-out, please let me know off-list. Attached you will find the current list of participants. Thanks, Marika

2 1

Data Collection Details
by Graeme Bunton Sept. 30, 2014

Sept. 30, 2014

So, requests 3 and 4 on our list were: 3 - Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful 4 - For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? And I agreed to provide some colour as to why these are probably difficult questions to answer. The below should be true for most providers (and really, for any support system), but should any Registrar colleagues disagree, feel free to chime in. The concise reason is that compliance desks are optimized for throughput of issues, and not for policy related reporting. In more detail - Compliance (or whatever dept that deals with issues around domains) may not use a ticketing system. If the provider is small enough, it may just be an email address. There is no obligation for anyone to use a system that is even capable of producing data, or from which data may easily be extracted. Even if they do use a system robust enough to allow for reporting, the data we're requesting may not typically be captured in the course of an investigation, or even useful for the running of the business. For question 3, for example, 'successful disclosure' is mostly relevant to the requester, but is not an attribute required to close the ticket. That information may be captured as text inside a description, but if it's not a specific flag on the ticket, it's very very difficult to report on accurately. We at Tucows occasionally mine the text of the tickets related to our retail operations, and the results are always considerably noisy. Question 4 presumes that requester type as well as as issue type are ticket attributes. I would think that some such systems do capture the issue type (IP, defamation, offensive, etc etc) but each service provider is going to have differently defined categories that may cause difficulty in the aggregation. As well, just because a claim is made, doesn't mean it has any particular validity which impacts categorization. If someone claims IP infringement, but our investigation yields no such issue, does the category still stand? As well, because requests are usually dealt with manually, categorizing requesters may be unlikely, aside from a distinction between LEA and 'other'. Lastly, as should be clear from previous discussions, there are very few black and white issues that we see. Given the variety of issues and the multitude of interest areas that they cross, straightforward classification is exceptionally difficult, and analysis that attempts to place requests into distinct buckets is going to lose a substantial amount of detail. Nonetheless, I'm in the process of looking into our system at the moment to see if possible to sketch out some trends. Unfortunately, we migrated to a new platform earlier this year, so there is not much to draw from. Graeme _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

7 15

devices and stuff ..
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sept. 30, 2014

Sept. 30, 2014

I seem to have missed most of this debate .. Personally I'm vehemently opposed to a ban on laptops. In common with others being able to communicate with others etc., is very important. Mobile phones should either be off or put on mute / silent Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

3 2

Brief Explanation of Proposed Group Agreements for LA F2F session
by Mary Wong Sept. 30, 2014

Sept. 30, 2014

Dear WG members, Thanks to everyone who has already sent in their votes for their ³top two² topics that they believe should be prioritized for discussion at the face to face facilitated session in LA on 10 October. For those who have not yet done so, please let me know your topic selections as soon as you can. I thought it might also be helpful to provide a brief explanation of the proposed ³group agreement² principles we sent around. First of all, please do not interpret these as final they are all subject to discussion as the idea is for them (or any others that are ultimately adopted) to be the product of group agreement, so as to facilitate greater collaboration, focus and likelihood of success. This may be something that we can take up further during the WG meeting tomorrow, for instance (for which we will be sending out a draft agenda shortly as well). Essentially, any and all ³group agreements² are the product of consensus and agreed on prior to any substantive work or discussions. Secondly, on the specific suggestion of ³no laptops or phones², this was included on the list of proposals because our experience with this type of facilitated face to face sessions including at a senior executive staff training session and at the first ICANN Academy event has shown that this is one of the best ³ground rules² for ensuring that everyone is focused and present, and fully contributing to the discussion. As I noted above, this like all the others is a proposal subject to group discussion and agreement, and the group can therefore agree to (a) use the rule as proposed; (b) reject the rule entirely; (c) use the rule with exceptions; or (d) something else. Should (c) be the group¹s choice, then part of that agreement might include agreed exceptions such as the ones Don, Kiran and Paul have listed. We also note the point made by Kristina and Kiran about communicating privately, whether with others in the room or who are participating remotely. Our thought on this was that one major objective of a face to face session is to have everyone contribute to the group conversation to that end, while a session may (subject to physical facilities and other limitations) break out into small groups and such, the preferred dynamic when the group is together (as we anticipate this WG mostly to be in LA) is for everyone to speak publicly unless a request is made for a more private caucus. We have planned to have a staff member keep an eye on questions and comments from remote participants for that reason. I hope this clarifies the document in question and look forward to the group¹s discussion on these proposed principles. 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

8 7

Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 30 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 30, 2014

Sept. 30, 2014

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday 30 September: 1. Roll Call/ Updates to SOI 2. Update on & discussion of F2F session in LA 3. Continue deliberations on Category F (documents distributed previously) 4. Next steps 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

1 0