July 2015 - 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

Doodle poll and action items for next week
by Mary Wong July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Dear WG members, Please take a few minutes to fill out the Doodle poll to help decide on two matters: whether to have a F2F meeting at ICANN54 in Dublin, and the duration of future WG calls - http://doodle.com/fpxdbavge58n3qk3. In filling out the poll, kindly note the following: * If a F2F meeting is indeed held in Dublin, the usual remote participation facilities will be made available for all who cannot attend in person. * The proposed date is Friday 16 October 2015. * The schedule/agenda for any such F2F meeting will be planned so as to begin no earlier than 11 a.m. Dublin time, to take into account flights that may arrive only that morning. * A F2F meeting is intended to be an intensive discussion just among the WG members (as was the case with the one this WG held in Los Angeles in October 2014); as such it will NOT replace the usual community-facing session which we anticipate will be held during the week of the ICANN meeting (hopefully at the same time and on the same day of the week as previous sessions). * In regard to future WG calls and their duration, any extended (90 minute) calls are not expected to begin till the week of 11 August, to allow for everyone to plan their schedules accordingly. Finally, please be reminded that in accordance with the discussion on the WG call this week part of the call this coming Tuesday (4 August) will likely be spent on reviewing those public comments that were not assigned to specific Sub Teams. You will recall that it was agreed the meeting would be more productive and effective if, instead of having the WG work through each and every individual comment, WG members could review the comments in advance of the meeting and at the meeting raise only those specific issues or comments on the call that you believe should be further discussed by the full WG. For your convenience, I attach again Part 1 of the Public Comment Review Tool, which covers preliminary recommendations #1 through #9 from our Initial Report. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 28 July 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine July 28, 2015

July 28, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 28 July 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-28jul15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton RrSG Val Sherman IPC Kathy Kleiman NCSG Alex Deacon IPC Stephanie Perrin NCSG Phil Corwin BC Terri Stumme BC James Bladel RrSG Todd Williams IPC Paul McGrady IPC Vicky Sheckler IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG Griffin Barnett- IPC David Cake - NCSG Sara Bockey RrSG Don Blumenthal RySG Dick Leaning - Individual Roger Carney - RrSG Susan Prosser - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil- IPC Apologies : Frank Michlick Individual Michele Neylon RrSG James Gannon NCUC Holly Raiche ALAC Steve Metalitz – IPC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Stephen Miller 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 ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 28 July 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 28th July 2015 Volker A. Greimann:I can hear a Canadian Graeme Bunton:We'll get going in about 2 mins i think Graeme Bunton:Also, welcome back Dick, that was a short retirement! Dick Leaning:Thank you - it was good while it lasted - golf is over rated James Bladel:Yeah, but if it goes too long, throw it away outside. Nathalie Peregrine:Steve Metalitz is an apology for today's call Kathy:@Graeme, will we be posting a list of current subteam members? Mary Wong:@Kathy they are on the WG wiki page Nathalie Peregrine:Chris Pelling has joined the AC room Kathy:Tx! Chris Pelling:Sorry for my tardiness Kathy:Hi Chris! Chris Pelling:Hey Kathy Mary Wong:Each of the 4 existing Sub Teams has its own wiki space (see left hand menu):https://community.icann.org/x/BI-hAg Mary Wong:I'm used to LOTS of emails by now :) :) Sara Bockey:Mary, I would like to volunteer for Group 1 (1.3.2) and Group 3 (Annex E). Can you add me to those? Mary Wong:@Sara, thanks Val Sherman:A sub list would be fine by me James Bladel:No opposition Kathy Kleiman:No, mailing list sounds good Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Fine by me too Mary Wong:OK we'll get cracking Susan Prosser:@Mary, I can join 1.3.3 Kathy Kleiman:@Graeme, you make it sound exciting - I'll volunteer for 1.3.3 and Annex E. Mary Wong:@Susan, ok thanks! Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I can also join 1.3.3 Mary Wong:Thanks, all Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks Graeme :-) Val Sherman:Doodle poll? Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:No one on the audio bridge who is not already in the AC room Mary Wong:Note that on the current Work Plan, each Sub Team is slated to do a preliminary report (as 1.3.2 is doing this week) and then a "final" report with suggested recommendations/actions for the full WG about 3 weeks following that. Vicky Sheckler:apologies - need to step out Nathalie Peregrine:Can you please all mute your phones and AC mics when not speaking? Thank you! Dick Leaning:I agree with Stephanie - Mary Wong:The Public Comment Review Tool would include all comments pertaining to each recommendation plus (eventually) a General section for those additional topics ID'd by the Sub team for Additional Questions Stephanie Perrin:Congratulations Mary! we dont want to plough through 116 pages Mary Wong:And that's only the first 9 recs :) Mary Wong:Though quite a few have now been taken on by the Sub Teams, Kathy Kleiman:@Mary - tx, a huge amount of work! Mary Wong:@Graeme that's correct Mary Wong:Yes Mary Wong:Hmm I thought it does but maybe that dropped out somehow Mary Wong:Will fix Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, what does see Note below mean? Which note? Mary Wong:@Kathy, which row number are you referring to? Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, I think the "See Note above" in #7 and #8 reference the note in #6?? Mary Wong:@Kathy, ah, yes Kiran Malancharuvil:If we can't figure out what their problem is specifically, how are we supposed to address concerns? Mary Wong:@Kiran, hopefully those that DID provide additional comments would be more helpful Stephanie Perrin:Kiran, I think it speaks to the need for more public outreach, explaining the issues. Kiran Malancharuvil:Stephanie, that's exactly the conjecture you claim to be against. Stephanie Perrin:PUtting things on the ICANN website is not public outreach....when we do outreach on a draft standard in the standards business their is a requirement to post in media where interested persons affected might see it and pay attention.... James Bladel:If a comment is opposed to proposed changes, without providing alternatives, then that should be construed as support for for status quo. Stephanie Perrin:+1 James Stephanie Perrin:I will volunteer on 1.3.3 Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm on 1.3.3 and haven't heard from anyone to organize Kiran Malancharuvil:if we do an hour and a half call, can we do a doodle to determine a different time? Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm happy to coordinate Kiran Malancharuvil:but I can't lead the discussion Kiran Malancharuvil:coordinate calls and provide dial in Mary Wong:@Kiran I can resend the original template email with the additional new sub team members, while the mailing list is set up James Bladel:+1 Kathy. James Bladel:Would help keep things straight. Stephanie Perrin:great idea, the logistics of keeping all the paper straight are challlenging Don Blumenthal:I think that another Doodlel also was requested about the F2F idea Mary Wong:Hopefully the F2F decision can be made this week Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks all! Stephanie Perrin:May I suggest that if there is this much interest in the issue, we owe the public a face to face in Dublin Kiran Malancharuvil:bye thanks Sara Bockey:thank you all!

1 0

Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 28 July
by Mary Wong July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our call on 28 July is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Administrative details - (1) recording and documentation of all sub team work; (2) call for additional volunteers (esp to Sub Team 1.3.3); (3) decision on proposed F2F meeting at ICANN54 in October; (4) duration of future WG meetings 3. Preliminary progress report from Sub Team 1.3.2 (Alex Deacon & Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; see attached documents that can also be found on the Sub Team's wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zoZCAw) 4. [if time permits] Commence review of WG Preliminary Recommendations #1-9 (see attached this is the Public Comment Review Tool Version 1 Part 1 that had been last circulated prior to last week¹s call) 5. Next steps/next meeting Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
by Volker Greimann July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Hi Paul, I intended to post to the list, apologies if I misclicked. I wanted to say that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. No one is served if the justice system takes months to process a simple request, OTOH, this is not a reason for circumventing due process. Slow justice is better than no justice or vigilantism. I also think that the importance of the debate is of the essence here, but that does not only include the interests of IP and trademark rights holders but also those of those affected by anything we come up with, i.e. civil society, private individuals and organizations, and their rights and interests. Best, Volker Am 20.07.2015 um 17:30 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: > > Thanks Volker. I don’t think your comment appreciates the importance > of the debate. Is there a reason that it was sent only to me and not > to the list? Any object to me posting it on the list? Thanks. > > *From:*Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 10:26 AM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed > approach for reviewing public comments > > Hi Paul, > > it seems a good thing not to be in a common law country then, as over > here usually a different axiom applies: "justice hurried along is bad > justice". If a case is there, a court will be able to see that and > issue an order. Getting injunctive relief can take as little as half a > day. > > Best, > > Volker > > > Am 20.07.2015 um 17:15 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: > > Thanks Volker. I’m pretty sure it won’t do any good to get drawn > into a conversation about the consequences of service providers > being and permanently staying the RNH, since that is not what is > really being discussed. The conversation has evolved well past > that point and a long, long time ago. > > I would, however, appreciate your substantive thoughts on how we > balance the need for consumers who are victims of scams and crime > (even if those consumers don’t happen to be domain name > registrants or P/P customers) within the “court order only” > paradigm which on its face is woefully inadequate to bring about a > timely remedy. It is now axiomatic in common law jurisdictions > that “Justice delayed is justice denied.” > > I’m looking forward to your reply. Thanks for your time. > > Best, > > Paul > > *From:*Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 9:03 AM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D.; James Gannon; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed > approach for reviewing public comments > > Privacy or proxy services do not conflict with section 3.3.1.6 of > the RAA (nor RA) as formally, the service provider is the RNH in a > proxy form. > > > Volker > > Am 20.07.2015 um 14:25 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: > > Thanks James. The ship has already sailed on option a). See > 3.3.1.6 of the RA noting the mandatory requirement of the > disclosure of “The name and postal address of the Registered > Name Holder.” What this team is discussing is how to develop > an framework for exceptions to 3.3.1.6 that does not create a > safe haven for human traffickers, cyber-bullies, and other > nefarious types that would harm non-commercial users of the > Internet. It is not within our remit to undo 3.3.1.6, no > matter how many form comments are posted asking that we do > so. Our remit is finding what circumstances warrant the > exception through allowing WHOIS modification and which do > not, the means to communicate to someone who is legitimately > using such WHOIS modification services, and the terms upon > which such allowable WHOIS modification will be terminated if > it is being used to abuse others. > > Even if abolishing 3.3.1.6 were a possibility and the DNS > wasn’t built on a series of contracts (which it is), I see no > particular upside to telling parents of children being bullied > online, geriatric victims of banking scams, and targets of > pay-in-advance credit offers that they have to wait months > while their local court order requiring disclosure makes its > way through the Hague Convention service process in order to > be effectuated by a far-away privacy service. Although we > have heard much about protecting the rights of non-commercial > users of the Internet who happen to be domain name registrants > as well and who are using P/P services (and we should be > concerned about them), we also need to keep in mind the other > non-commercial users of the Internet who will also be affected > – even if they have not contributed financially to the system > by purchasing a domain name. > > I for one hope we can get back on track and discuss the > substantive, relevant comments and reach final consensus on > the handful of outstanding issues and get a report in to the > GNSO that reflects a sensible balance. > > Regards, > > Paul > > *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of > *James Gannon > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 5:51 AM > *To:* Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed > approach for reviewing public comments > > Agreed Volker I would put my analysis in set A aswell. > > -James > > *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of > *Volker Greimann > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 11:37 AM > *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed > approach for reviewing public comments > > Hi Steve, > > these comments can be read in different ways: > > a) ICANN should not implement policy that requires disclosure > without a court order, or > b) no disclosure should be allowed without a court order. > > I tend to interpret the comments as being in the a) column. > > Best, > > Volker > > Am 17.07.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: > > No, James, we should certainly consider those concerns but > not necessarily change the report. > > The single concern raised more often than any other, I am > positive, is that proxy services should not be permitted > to disclose any information on their customer without a > court order. That is not a standard that your service or > any other that I know of can meet. We can change our > report to make that a requirement for privacy/proxy > service providers. Should we? > > Steve > > *From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 3:35 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised > proposed approach for reviewing public comments > > Steve: > > With respect, if several thousand commenters raised issues > that concern them, but are not addressed by our report, > the our focus should be on changing the report, not > discounting the comments. > > Thank you, > > J. > > ____________ > > James Bladel > > GoDaddy > > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 21:20, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com > <mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: > > I am all in favor of people identifying topics they > believe need to be addressed by the WG. However, > Kathy, I have to disagree with your premise, which is > that the ten thousand plus comments reflect responses > to our questions or even statements of agreement or > disagreement to our consensus positions or report > proposals. A much smaller (though still significant) > number of comments do that, and those should be our > top priority for review and response. But the vast > majority of comments clearly are not responses to our > report. These mass comments raise a very limited > number of issues, which I don’t think we will that > much difficulty dealing with once we have addressed > the responses to our questions and the reasoned > statements of agreement or disagreement with specific > proposals we have made. > > Let’s get started on the more substantive comments, > starting with the questions we did pose. We have > subteams forming to start to tackle that, and the > staff (and Graeme!) are providing some tools to try to > help facilitate that. For those who don’t wish to > join subteams, again, I agree it would be useful to > identify (as you put it) the “major issues and > concerns” that you find in the comments, with > citations to those comments that you believe raise > those major issues and concerns. > > Steve > > *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:34 PM > *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised > proposed approach for reviewing public comments > > Hi Don, Steve, Graeme, Mary and all WG members, > I would like recommend that we take a slightly > different approach. We received over ten thousand > comments, many coming from those who do not ordinarily > participate in the ICANN process. They wrote to us us > not only in response to our specific questions, but > also to share agreement (and disagreement) to our > consensus positions/report proposals, and to explain > why proxy/privacy registrations are important to them. > There has been a huge outpouring particularly on the > last issue. > > While a few topics for cataloging these comments were > presented on the call, with great respect, I do not > think we have dealt with or cataloged all of the major > issues and concerns raised by the comments yet. Before > we leap forward to subteams and analysis, shouldn't we > ask further, in writing, and with the whole of the WG > participating -- have we gotten the topics right? Have > we created sufficient topics to allow us to catalog > the broad range of information, concerns and comments > shared with us by so many commenters? > > I would like to request that we be able to take big > breath, and a slightly (only slightly!) different > approach. In preparation for Tuesday's call, could we > all skim the comments -- with our array of expertise, > insight, knowledge of aspects of our commenter base -- > to come up with topics that we think the WG should > evaluate in tour review? Perhaps if we can circulate > the topics online, and then discuss them on Tuesday. > > Then we discuss how these topics/this substance might > be overlaid on the subteam process laid out below and > shared for the first time on last week's call. We will > then have both substance and process! And we will know > that we have considered all of the major issues > arising from these important comments. > > If we go forward now without this evaluation, I fear > we may be missing much of what the comments have to offer. > > Best and tx, > Kathy > > > *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Mary Wong > > > > *Sent:*14 July 2015 23:50 > *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for > reviewing public comments > > Dear WG members, > > Following from the WG call earlier today, the > co-chairs and staff after some consultation would like > to propose the following approach for your consideration: > > _1. Use of Sub Teams for Specific Topics_: > > * Sub-teams comprising a few WG volunteers each can > be formed to do the initial review of public > comments received on the three topics suggested by > Steve on the call, i.e. (1) Section 1.3.2 of the > Initial Report (on escalation of relay requests > and the handling of disclosure/publication > requests from third parties other than IP rights > holders); (2) Section 1.3.3 (on the open question > regarding online financial transactions); and (3) > Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework). > * To assist the WG evaluate the usefulness of sub > teams, a sub team for Section 1.3.2 can be formed > first and serve as a “test case” for the exercise. > * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a > “first pass” through a template, based on the > Public Comment Review Tool, that staff will > populate with all the input received on that > particular issue. The sub team will report back to > the full WG in a timely fashion, including > suggesting a WG response and/or proposed action in > relation to the comments received. > * Sub teams may elect to do their work via email and > online tools (e.g. Google Docs or a wiki page), > with or without supplemental conference calls. Any > calls will be recorded and transcribed for > transparency purposes, and drafts and other > documents prepared using online tools will also be > made available to the full WG. (Do note, however, > that depending on call scheduling and timing, > staff support may not be available for all > requested calls if several sub teams are used > concurrently.) > > *PLEASE VOLUNTEER FOR SUB TEAM 1.3.2 IF YOU ARE > INTERESTED IN ASSISTING WITH THIS INITIAL REVIEW. > *Staff will endeavor to provide the template tool for > 1.3.2 to the sub team as soon as possible, hopefully > by Monday. > > _2. Full WG Review of Other Comments to Continue in > Parallel_: > > * Staff will “collapse” (per James’ suggestion on > the call) all those template responses received > that were simply a Yes or No answer to a question, > without any further comment added – these will be > reflected in the Public Comment Review Tool > accordingly, as a single collective entry. The > current Tool (covering Preliminary Recommendations > 1 through 9) will be updated in time for the WG to > begin this review on the next call. > > _3. Collated Information_: > > * In addition to the updated spreadsheet just > circulated by Graeme, we can also send you > archived mail files of the contributions received > to the public comment forum, should you or your > group wish to conduct searches through each > comment yourselves. > > We hope the above will be helpful in facilitating good > progress on the work to be done in preparation for the > Final Report. > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Confidentiality Notice > This message is being sent by or on behalf of a > lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual > or entity to which it is addressed. This communication > may contain information that is proprietary, > privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt > from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, > you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or > disseminate this message or any part of it. If you > have received this message in error, please notify the > sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of > the message. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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. > > > > > > > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and > confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in > error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of > this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the > permission of the author. > > -- > > 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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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. > > > > > > > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please > delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not > intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not > disseminate this message without the permission of the author. > > > > -- > 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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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. > > > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete > it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to > waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message > without the permission of the author. -- 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.

12 30

.uk ccTLD to introduce privacy / proxy + change opt out criteria
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

As some of you may know Nominet conducted a consultation earlier this year on their whois policies. The new policies have been announced today: http://www.internetnews.me/2015/07/23/nominet-announces-whois-policy-change… -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

2 4

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approachfor reviewing public comments
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

If the PSWG want to be taken seriously they need to submit comments within the proper timelines The comment period closed on July 7th. It’s now July 23rd, so I don’t see how their comments can be accepted at this juncture. Or if they are accepted they should not be considered to be part of the comment period, as they did not submit them as part of it. While I also think it would be good to get LEA input I don’t see why PSWG cannot respect the timelines that everyone else has to work to Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 23/07/2015 11:00, "Victoria Sheckler" <vsheckler(a)riaa.com> wrote: >I believe their comments are forthcoming. > >-----Original Message----- >From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong >Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 12:19 PM >To: Kiran Malancharuvil; Michele Neylon - Blacknight >Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approachfor reviewing public comments > >Hello Kiran and everyone, > >The PSWG did not seem to have submitted their comments to the PPSAI public comments forum. I checked around internally and do not think they sent it in or published it. As such, ICANN policy staff doesn¹t have any records or copies of it and so whatever PSWG statement was drafted has not been included or reflected in our documents, including the various templates comprising the Public Comment Review Tool. > >Cheers >Mary > > >Mary Wong >Senior Policy Director >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 >Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com> >Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:58 >To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> >Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approachfor reviewing public comments > >>Good question. Since I was loathe to sort through zillions of pages >>looking for the comments I wanted to read initially, I requested the >>comments directly from Bobby and he emailed them to me. I don't think >>Dick has access to this list anymore, but I will ask them to forward a >>link or attachment and I will pass it along? >> >>K >> >>Kiran Malancharuvil >>Policy Counselor >>MarkMonitor >>415-419-9138 (m) >> >>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>><michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone have a link to their submission? >>> >>> I know they were drafting one, but I don¹t recall seeing it >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Michele >>> -- >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> http://www.blacknight.host/ >>> http://blog.blacknight.com/ >>> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage >>>http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: >>>+353 (0)59 9183090 >>> Social: http://mneylon.social >>> Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>>Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 22/07/2015 04:59, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf >>>>of Kiran Malancharuvil" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on >>>>behalf of Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Barry, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments. I think you would be interested in the >>>>past interventions of Dick Leaning, who was the LE representative on >>>>this group until his retirement from Europol on July 1st of this >>>>year, and in the public safety working group comment drafted by Bobby >>>>Flaim from the FBI and Loreen Kapin from the FTC (with Dick's input). >>>>They have statedon multiple occasions that getting a warrant isn't a >>>>15 minute thing. I'll let them speak for themselves but suffice to >>>>say that they prefer a system that doesn't require a warrant. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that they've given their >>>>recommendations formally. >>>> >>>> Happy lurking! >>>> >>>> Kiran >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>>> On Jul 21, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I apologize for posting at all since I'm not much involved but I'm >>>>> sort of surprised at the level of speculation about law enforcement. >>>>> >>>>> As an ISP I've been in the middle of this sort of thing. >>>>> >>>>> In a nutshell there are large and huge and tiny LEAs and they're >>>>> all quite different in their response. >>>>> >>>>> I've dealt with the FBI who can turn out a proper warrant in about >>>>> 15 minutes and college campus police (colleges you've heard of) who >>>>> could be incredibly unprofessional -- one threatened, and I mean >>>>> angrily threatened, that if I didn't produce the credentials >>>>> immediately (I stood my ground for a warrant, it was basically >>>>> cyberstalking) they would "show up at my office". I said they were >>>>> welcome, I'd make the coffee, and got in touch with the >>>>> university's general counsel. I could post that interchange but as >>>>> you can imagine they were horribly embarrassed. >>>>> >>>>> Why not get someone from an LEA or two involved even informally >>>>> rather than speculate? >>>>> >>>>> So much of this is in the name of law enforcement yet my impression >>>>> is that law enforcement per se hasn't been engaged. >>>>> >>>>> A DA wouldn't hurt either since they have to build the cases and >>>>> wield the prosecutorial discretion which is really what you're >>>>> ultimately trying to support. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I'll go back to lurking. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Barry Shein >>>>> >>>>> The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | >>>>>http://www.TheWorld.com >>>>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, >>>>>PR, Canada >>>>> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 >>>>>*oo* >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)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 >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>_______________________________________________ >>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

2 1

FW: A slightly revised proposed approachfor reviewing public comments
by Kiran Malancharuvil July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Hi All: Please find, below, some comments from Dick Leaning (formerly of Europol and this group). He is unable to post to the list so I am forwarding. I hope it's readable. Thanks, Kiran > On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Richard Leaning wrote: > > > Kiran - Can you post the below to group for me as i don’t have the group email address and cc me in please. > > > Dear All, > > I apologise for not emailing earlier or being on the last two calls. As you are all probably aware i retired from LE on the 30th June after 30+ years to take up a new challenge, its on Linkedin if anyone is interested, which has taken up most of my time over the last couple of weeks. I would like to continue being part of this group as an interested individual but am unable to commit just yet. and of course, if i will be accepted. > > The PSWG will appoint someone new to apply to join the group in my place very soon. > > I however have been keeping a distant eye on the discussions and would like to comment of the ‘average cop’ knowledge of WHOIS, not as an PSWG spokesperson but as a 30+ Detective with Scotland Yard. > > What is an average cop? Good question - there is no such thing as an average cop, we all do the same basic training then we specialise into our chosen investigative fields - Drugs, Murder, Extortion, Terrorism, Rape, Human trafficking, Child Abuse and Cyber Crime to name a few. > > A Murder Squad Investigator would not have the necessary training to investigate a terrorism offence. An Drugs investigator would not have the necessary training to investigate an Child Abuse case, you get my drift. So is a Murder squad investigator an 'average cop’ from the view point of a Child Abuse investigator? I don’t think so. > > What all these offence have in common is the Internet - ALL CRIME HAS A PRESENCE ON THE INTERNET. From criminals using it to communicate, to using it to steal all our personal information. > > When i started many years ago - the criminals used land lines and telephone boxes, then they moved onto pagers, mobile phones (only calls and text messages in those days) - when i was drug squad Detective it was not unusual to arrest a major drug dealer with 20+ mobile phones in his possession. > > Then with the Internet they started using Draft emails, now they have so many ways to communicate - its not unheard of that two criminals would use ‘Tinder’ to speak to each other. > > With the internet as it is today - many many criminals use the internet to buy and sell guns and drugs, move illegal money around, hire like minder individuals, stream live child abuse images, sell Botnets, C2 Severs and credit card details - this is all done by the use of websites. The vast majority of these web-sites use the services of a Privacy Proxy provider covering many jurisdictions or just fill in WHOIS with false details. A MLAT is not fit for purpose in these dynamic investigations - its takes months to process, yes months. > > So what does this mean - it means that the ‘average global cop’ who is involved in any type of these criminal investigation is fully aware of WHOIS. Thats why we are here at ICANN representing all LE who investigate all types of criminal offences. > > Now the PSWG are representing all organisations that protect the public from unlawful activity that use websites. > > A great many of LE globally know an amazing amount about WHOIS. > > Cheers > > Dick > > > > On 22 Jul 2015, at 05:00, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Kiran Malancharuvil > <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo > nitor.com><mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> > Date: July 21, 2015 at 8:59:25 PM PDT > To: Barry Shein > <bzs(a)world.std.com<mailto:bzs@world.std.com><mailto:bzs@world.std.com> > > > Cc: "McGrady, Paul D." > <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com><mailto:PMcGrady@win > ston.com>>, > "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed > approachfor reviewing public comments > > Barry, > > Thanks for your comments. I think you would be interested in the past interventions of Dick Leaning, who was the LE representative on this group until his retirement from Europol on July 1st of this year, and in the public safety working group comment drafted by Bobby Flaim from the FBI and Loreen Kapin from the FTC (with Dick's input). They have statedon multiple occasions that getting a warrant isn't a 15 minute thing. I'll let them speak for themselves but suffice to say that they prefer a system that doesn't require a warrant. > > Anyway, I just wanted to point out that they've given their recommendations formally. > > Happy lurking! > > Kiran > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Jul 21, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com<mailto:bzs@world.std.com><mailto:bzs@world.std.com>> wrote: > > > I apologize for posting at all since I'm not much involved but I'm > sort of surprised at the level of speculation about law enforcement. > > As an ISP I've been in the middle of this sort of thing. > > In a nutshell there are large and huge and tiny LEAs and they're all > quite different in their response. > > I've dealt with the FBI who can turn out a proper warrant in about 15 > minutes and college campus police (colleges you've heard of) who could > be incredibly unprofessional -- one threatened, and I mean angrily > threatened, that if I didn't produce the credentials immediately (I > stood my ground for a warrant, it was basically cyberstalking) they > would "show up at my office". I said they were welcome, I'd make the > coffee, and got in touch with the university's general counsel. I > could post that interchange but as you can imagine they were horribly > embarrassed. > > Why not get someone from an LEA or two involved even informally rather > than speculate? > > So much of this is in the name of law enforcement yet my impression is > that law enforcement per se hasn't been engaged. > > A DA wouldn't hurt either since they have to build the cases and wield > the prosecutorial discretion which is really what you're ultimately > trying to support. > > Sorry, I'll go back to lurking. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com<mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com><mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com> | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto > :Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >

3 4

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 21 July 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 21 July 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-21jul15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick – Individual Val Sherman – IPC Kathy Kleiman – NCSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Alex Deacon –IPC Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Phil Corwin – BC Terri Stumme – BC Susan Kawaguchi – BC James Bladel – RrSG Sarah Wyld – RrSG Todd Williams – IPC Paul McGrady – IPC Vicky Sheckler – IPC Amr Elsadr-NCUC James Gannon – NCUC Holly Raiche – ALAC Jim Bikoff - IPC David Heasley - IPC Kiran Malancharuvil- IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG Griffin Barnett- IPC David Cake - NCSG Michele Neylon – RrSG Apologies : Graeme Bunton – RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Sara Bockey – RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Stephen Miller 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 ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 21 July 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 21 July 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Susan Kawaguchi is on the audio bridge Mary Wong:Sorry, I missed a "0" after the 2! James Bladel:Can folks mute when not speaking? thx? Nathalie Peregrine:Please all mute your lines and mics! Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the AC room Kathy K:I think this timetable is much more realistic.. Nathalie Peregrine:Frank Michlick has joined the call Holly Raiche:Agree much more realistic Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has also joined the AC room James Bladel:5x5 Mary Wong:Note that 9 Nov (the "due date" listed here for our Final Report) is the last day to submit documents for consideration by the Council at its Nov meeting. Frank Michlick:Michele Neylon is in a meeting and will most likely not be able to attend. Amr Elsadr:Suggestions to incorporate could be made by the sub-teams using the review tools. This could be reviewed by the full WG as well. Nathalie Peregrine:Thanks Frank, noted Amr Elsadr:Agree with Mary. Paul:no objection to extending the timeframe, so long as we meet the Nov. deadline Volker A. Greimann:even if the RAA spec runs out between the time we finalize our report and the time it is implemented, I do not think the world will end Mary Wong:Staff will obviously incorporate whatever agreed recommendations/language the WG has throughout this review process Mary Wong:Into a draft Final Report I mean - which like our Initial Report will be reviewed by the full WG. Amr Elsadr:It is also common practice to have a redline version of the final report showing the changes made to the initial report. This will ultimately be helpful as well. Mary Wong:@Amr, right Kathy Kleiman:+1 Jim Val Sherman:+1 Kiran Malancharuvil:agree with Jim. very difficult to add time to this Kathy Kleiman:I think the longer timeframe removes the immediate need for extended call Amr Elsadr:@Volker: +1. No reason to set a hard deadline in November IF we need more time to get the work done right, and attempt to achieve as much consensus as possible. Volker A. Greimann:I can add 30 minutes after each call, adding another day will be more difficult Nathalie Peregrine:James Gannon has joined the AC room James Gannon:Sorry travelling and overlap with the WP2 CCWG call is conspiring against me James Gannon:I'd support that flexability in starting later to accomodate fliughts Paul:Support Friday meeting. Support keeping our calls to 1 hour. James Bladel:This will also likely conflict with ICG/CCWG, both are tentatively planning sessions on Friday. Holly Raiche:Tom was really helpful in that meeting Kathy Kleiman:Sorry, but I wonder if we will still need this full day meeting so late in our work? Volker A. Greimann:we should try to move away from burdening ICANN with travel support for WG efforts. The budget is strained over capacity as it is Frank Michlick:@Volker: There's lots of auction funds ;-) James Bladel:Volker - I believe these sorts of F2F meetings (incl. travel support) are already budgeted. So its mainly a question of which WG is allocated the slot Nathalie Peregrine:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid has joined the AC room Amr Elsadr:If I'm not mistaken, GNSO councillors who are members of this WG will not be able to attend a F2F meeting on Friday. Not that this should necessarily be a deciding factor. Just something to be considered. Holly Raiche:AAt least someone like Tom would be really helpful Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, yikes - we have a lot of GNSO councilors in this group Mary Wong:@Amr, why is that? James Bladel:Not sure about Council. Mary Wong:The GNSO Council development session is after the ICANN meeting (23 Oct) and this F2F (if it takes place) will be on 16 Oct Kiran Malancharuvil:agree with Paul Philip Corwin:I believe Council may be planning to hold some type of extra meeting on the Friday after ICANN ends, not prior. Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Ah..., thanks for setting me straight on that. I thought it was on the same day. Volker A. Greimann:@Frank: No one touches the auction funds until the board says so; @all: indeed, the GNSO councillors will not be able to attend if the session is scheduled to conflict with the council development session Amr Elsadr:@Phil: Yes..., that is correct. My bad. Apologies. Philip Corwin:Mary just confirmed my impression on Council Kathy Kleiman:Agree Paul and James James Gannon:Bad echo Nathalie Peregrine:please all mute mics! Amr Elsadr:Hearing an echo. Can everyone please mute lines when not speaking. Nathalie Peregrine:The echo is being caused by an AC microphone Amr Elsadr:Gone now. Thnx. Mary Wong:Wasn't me :) Kiran Malancharuvil:I still hear an echo Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the audio bridge James Gannon:It can bbe suggested as needed if we encounter a roadlock Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the AC room Amr Elsadr:Certainly prefer 90 minute calls vs. additional ones. Mary Wong:Note that this list is in order of who volunteered when (in case you're wondering). Kiran Malancharuvil:if we add time to the call can we revisit the start time? a lot of us have standing conflicts. Amr Elsadr:@Kiran: That's fine by me. vicky sheckler:mary - please add me to annex e Mary Wong:OK thanks Vicky Frank Michlick:I was originally intending to arrive on Sunday for the ICANN meeting . Kiran Malancharuvil:maybe we can do a poll? Amr Elsadr:I would actually prefer starting 30 minutes earlier than extending for 30 minutes. James Gannon:+1 Kiran can we doodle the call times to try and work out some good times Frank Michlick:I can help in a subteam too. Mary Wong:Thanks, Frank - any preference? Kiran Malancharuvil:@Amr - that's not my preference, but again, maybe a poll Frank Michlick:@Mary: Give me a moment, I'll take a closer look again, one moment. Nathalie Peregrine:Michele Neylon has joined the call Stephanie Perrin:Can we also please ensure that we vary the times so that we accommodate our colleagues in Asia &Australia Holly Raiche:So add due process to Annex E? Michele Neylon:sorry - was stuck in a meeting Mary Wong:@Holly, @Kathy - our thought was that as additional topics are identified and agreed on by the WG, the decision can then be made as to whether particular additional topics should be asigned to specific sub team(s) or more appropriately reviewed by the entire WG Holly Raiche:Thanks Mary Philip Corwin:@Holly--I'd think the issue of due process is inherenet in Annex E Mary Wong:Remember also that the WG has to review the sub teams' suggestions; so if anything is "left out" that is another channel to ensure we do not miss them. Holly Raiche:Agree Philip - but maybe make that an official term of reference for the subteam? Mary Wong:@Holly, all, if it helps - that point does come through in a lot of the comments, including those that responded directly to specific recommendations/open questions. James Bladel:+1 James.. Consensus needs to be focus, or this entire effort is in jeopardy. Philip Corwin:Fine with me, Holly James Gannon:=) Mary Wong:Again, the sub teams only do the preliminary work of review and make suggestions to the full WG. The WG still has the responsibility of making sure their response/action is fully discussed and agreed on; the sub teams do not mean the rest of the WG relies on them entirely. Paul McGrady:Yes, speedy list would be the goal. Mary Wong:Each sub team also uses the same template/matrix ie the Public Comment Review Tool. Amr Elsadr:Some topics have already been identified and shared on-list. Couldn't the full group just agree to add those and (perhaps a sub-team) attempt to identify others. Mary Wong:@Amr - each topic needs to cite back to specific comments/commenters for transparency reasons. That's one reason why an Additional Topics sub team could do that work. James Bladel:+1 Phil. Or pressure councilors to kill it in the GNSO. Stephanie Perrin:+1 Phil Holly Raiche:+1 - Phil Michele Neylon:Amr - how are you doing green text?? James Gannon:Having heard Phill, Paul and PMary I think that we can look at the 'other' questions in a subgroup that we bring back to the WG, I would like to have enough time to address what comes out of that subteam Amr Elsadr:@Michele: The AC room is aware of my affinity to $$$!! :) James Gannon:Pink is much more fashionable Stephanie Perrin:@Michele, he bought a .irish domain.. Mary Wong:I didn't suggest new sub teams other than these three and the Additional Topics one, BTW Amr Elsadr:@Michele: Actually..., just use the menu on the top right of the chat box. There's a chat color option. Michele Neylon:ooo Michele Neylon:shiny Amr Elsadr:Boys and their toys!! :) James Gannon:Ill voluenteer Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Agreed Mary. Mary Wong:Although if that is appropriate following the identification of and agreement on what those additional topics might be, that may be one way rather than leave them to the full WG. Mary Wong:@James G - for identifying Additional Topisc? James Gannon:Correct Stephanie Perrin:Lets call it a subteam Stephanie Perrin:I volunteer Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Please add me to the new sub-team as well. Amr Elsadr:For identifying new topics. Mary Wong:I will send you all a blank template to fill out Amr Elsadr:A spin-off team. Frank Michlick:I'd like to be on the new topic subteam as well for now James Gannon:Agreed Michele Neylon:+1 James Michele Neylon:a lot of people are on holiday at the moment Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: Could you kindly expand the PPSAI WG Subteam list with a verbal description of what they are covering? Michele Neylon:they might be doing email but can't do phone Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: would appreciate it! Mary Wong:I will circulate the sub team list, add what they are expected to do, and include what I noted to Sub Team 1.3.2 last night regarding possiblity of staff support, tools etc. Mary Wong:@James - yes, that's a discussion we are already having :) James Gannon:Good =) Mary Wong:It helps that Marika was supporting the CWG-IANA :) James Gannon:Yes shes a superstar! James Gannon:And you aswell of course! The superstarteam! Mary Wong:LOL - I was neither fishing nor insulted! :) Mary Wong:But we DO work very closely together! James Bladel:Thx folks. Kathy Kleiman:Tx Steve and All! James Gannon:A PPSAI call finisheing early??? Wow =) Paul McGrady:Thanks Steve! Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks Michele Neylon:ciao Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Val Sherman:thanks all!

1 0

Follow up from WG call - sub teams, the proposed F2F meeting and future planning
by Mary Wong July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Dear WG members, Here are some follow up notes and action items stemming from our call of earlier today. Use of Sub Teams: * A fourth Sub Team, to identify and allocate additional topics for review, will be formed to supplement the three existing Sub Teams (on 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and Annex E). * Each Sub Team is expected to do a ³first pass² at reviewing all the public comments received for its specific topic; with a view toward providing the full WG with suggestions as to potential responses and appropriate actions including, where applicable, suggestions for amending existing language and/or Preliminary Recommendations in the WG Initial Report (please refer to the WG Guidelines for further details on the use of sub teams). * While the Sub Teams are intended to serve as an efficient and focused method for working through all the public comments received on those topics that the WG considers to be open questions or issues of major concern to the community, the work of the Sub Teams does not supersede the responsibility of the WG to ensure that they actively participate in the work, that comments are thoroughly analyzed and ultimately to participate in consensus calls (per the WG Guidelines). * For the three existing Sub Teams, staff will provide a template/matrix modeled substantially on the Public Comment Review Tool, which will contain those public comments and online responses to our questions template that directly address that specific topic. * For the fourth Sub Team, staff will provide a blank template/matrix (as above) for the Sub Team to fill in, as this exercise is expected to involve some ³judgment calls² that may be inappropriate for staff to make at this point. * For transparency as these templates/matrices are all linked to in the WG¹s Final Report - all templates/matrices will include columns that align specific comments and commenters with the Sub Team¹s suggested approach. Please see the attached document for the current list of Sub Teams and their volunteers, and let me know if you would like to sign up for any of them. There are no specific rules as to how many or who should participate in a Sub Team, but ideally each Sub Team should represent a balance of skills and interests (per the WG Guidelines). Staff Support for Sub Teams: * Sub Teams are encouraged to do as much of their work as possible using email and other online tools (e.g. a wiki or Google Docs). Should it be necessary to schedule a call, staff can assist with providing a call-in number. Please note that the availability of staff (policy and secretariat) support for such calls will depend on the time/day/regularity of such calls. In particular, please note that while for transparency reasons it would be preferable to record such calls, this will require the presence of secretariat staff, so please take this into account if scheduling a call. Proposed F2F Meeting in Dublin: * Proposed date: Friday 16 October * Proposed duration/scope: TBD by the WG (need not be a full day) * Use of professional facilitator: Little support for one at this stage in the WG¹s deliberations * Travel support: Hotel only; generally, maximum 6 participants per GNSO SG or ICANN SO/AC (1 hotel night each, or maximum of 2 hotel nights per person if the SG/SO/AC does not fill up all its 6 slots). However, depending on takeup rate, the WG co-chairs may be able to advise additional hotel nights or participants if doing so would ensure representativeness and diversity of participation * Remote participation: Yes Please provide your feedback as to whether or not this WG should proceed with a F2F meeting in Dublin as soon as possible. The GNSO Council will discuss the selection of a PDP WG for a Dublin F2F meeting at its meeting this Thursday. Staff will note that there is some interest among this WG to do one, but that a final decision has not yet been made. Planning for Subsequent WG Meetings: * Some preference to extend calls beyond one hour rather than schedule additional calls * Any change to the current duration/day/time would need more than a week¹s notice, and possibly a Doodle poll * Current preference is to stay with one-hour calls and to revisit the matter should it appear necessary to change this arrangement Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0