July 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

A proposed approach for reviewing public comments
by Mary Wong July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

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 ³test case² for the exercise. * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a ³first pass² 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 ³collapse² (per James¹ 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

21 52

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] WSJ Article
by Mary Wong July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Forwarding the message below from Vicky, whose emails don¹t seem to be coming through on the list. Cheers Mary > From: Victoria Sheckler > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:33 AM > To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: FW: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] WSJ Article > > Resending- not sure it made it through the first time to the list. > From: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler(a)riaa.com> > Date: July 20, 2015 at 4:23:21 PM EDT > To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: FW: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] WSJ Article >> >> Volker You stated that ³I just felt that showing only one part of the >> debate in a public forum such as the WSJ after all this time we spent on >> exactly this subject was very one-sided.² For a public forum where a >> one-sided picture was presented, please see www.Savedomainprivacy.org >> <http://www.Savedomainprivacy.org> . >> >> Further, while John presented his point of view in his op ed, he presented >> the issue without material inaccuracies as far as I can tell. As noted in the >> COA comments, there are serious questions about whether the information >> presented to the public on the websites from which the petitions and mass >> comments were generated was "honest", or rather misleading. Please refer to >> the COA comments for a point by point discussion of the concerns with these >> sites. >> >> Separately, I am concerned that no one is discussing the privacy related >> rights of the users of web sites operating behind p/p services. Most, if not >> all, privacy best practices, call for transparency on the part of the web >> site operator if he or she is collecting information about its users. When >> thinking about privacy, I would think that it would be these end users of the >> web sites that have a stronger privacy right than that of the web site >> operator. >> >> - Vicky >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann >> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:57 PM >> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] WSJ Article >> >> It has been pointed out to me that my comments in the below mail could be >> misinterpreted as an ad hominem attack against John, calling into doubt his >> integrity. This was not my intention. >> >> I just felt that showing only one part of the debate in a public forum such >> as the WSJ after all this time we spent on exactly this subject was very >> one-sided. John was postulating his position as the only logical conclusion >> though without even acknowledging there is another side to this argument. >> Effectively, he cast those on the other side as obstructionist for the sake >> of being obstructionist. >> >> Presenting a case from only one angle may not be dishonest, but is far from >> being completely honest either as it leaves out part of the truth. >> >> I respect John and his opinions but I just wish he would have presented the >> discussion more evenly. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> Am 20.07.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Volker Greimann: >>> > http://www.wsj.com/articles/unmasking-shady-anonymous-e-commerce-14370 >>> > 00876 >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi John, >>> > >>> > not really helpful, especially since th answers to your rethorical >>> > questions have all been discussed at length during the WG meetings. A >>> > bit more honesty and equal portrayal of both sides would have been >>> > more helpful. >>> > >> >> -- >> 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 <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(a)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. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Some additional subtopics arising from the thousands of comments we received
by Kathy Kleiman July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Hi All, I have now reviewed a number of the comments, as I hope you have. As discussed in an earlier email, I think there are other topics we should be looking at in the sub-teams based on the outpouring of responses from companies, organizations, and especially thousands of individuals. My thought is not to create additional sub-teams, but to assign additional topics to sub-teams (so the sub-teams remain diverse and well-staffed). Here are three additional topics that arise from a review of the comments - and I would be interested in hearing what others have found as well. A) Due process: thousands of commenters call for due process, and the call is not necessarily or exclusively for court orders. Due process is considered to be a fundamental balance and fairness and ability of all parties involved to participate equally in a process impacting them. What do the commenters say about due process and how might these recommendations be incorporated into all or various aspects of the draft recommendations and report? B) Use of proxy/privacy registration and abuse of registrants who do not have them. We have received /thousands /of pieces of data on abuses of domain name data - some of which we knew and and some that we did not. What are the types of problems that registrants -- legitimate, good faith registrants -- have shared with us in these comments and how can their experiences be better reflected in our work? C) Speech/expression/anonymity/chilling effects. These are mentioned in a number of the longer, substantive comments coming in from groups both inside ICANN and outside. What are the issues being raised and how can we better address them in our draft recommendations and report? /See e.g, comment of //Center for Democracy and Technology, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge./ To Steve's three topics and sub-teams below, I would add the following important expansion to insure that we look into the full range of topics an issue offers -- even if those who commented did not use the right words or vocabulary - /additions in italics below. / (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) /to include a review of those comments that addressed the ////commerical/noncommercial distinction more generally and evaluate if these commenters provide insight and guidance on the "sub-commercial use" issue of financial transactions as well/ /(with note that those outside of ICANN may use non-ICANN terms and vocabulary to approach the same concern)/; and (3) Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework) -- /hopefully with the subteam also evaluate the new subtopic A, Due Process, and the issues commenters have raised in their thousands of "due process" comments as they might impact the review and revisions of these detailed framework recommendations*. * /Best, Kathy* *

3 2

WSJ Article
by Volker Greimann July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

http://www.wsj.com/articles/unmasking-shady-anonymous-e-commerce-1437000876 Hi John, not really helpful, especially since th answers to your rethorical questions have all been discussed at length during the WG meetings. A bit more honesty and equal portrayal of both sides would have been more helpful. -- 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.

2 2

Proposed agenda for WG meeting on 21 July
by Mary Wong July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for our WG call on Tuesday 21 July 2015: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss revised Work Plan, including possible F2F meeting at ICANN54 and initiation/timing of proposed Sub Teams (see attached document) 3. Discuss proposed approach for new Sub Team on Additional Questions 4. Next steps, including extending meetings to 90 minutes starting on 28 July Please note that the attached revised Work Plan has not yet been reviewed by the WG co-chairs, although the use of sub teams, extended weekly meetings and a proposed all-day F2F meeting in Dublin have been discussed among the co-chairs and staff. Please note also that for the proposed F2F meeting, the objective would be based on, and the meeting conducted under the framework of. the GNSO Council¹s Special Budget Request that was approved for FY2016 (which was to continue the pilot project on facilitated PDP WG F2F meetings started last year, in which this WG participated as the first such group to be selected by the Council). The WG co-chairs have asked that the first Sub-Team, on 1.3.2, begin work this week with a view to reporting back with an initial report to the full WG next week. Please see attached for the list of WG members who have volunteered for the Sub Teams to date, and let me know if you would like to be added to any one of them. Please also accept my apologies if I have missed your email asking to be added to one or more of the teams. 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 McGrady, Paul D. July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

Hi Volker, You sent me an email that did not copy in the list. Can you please send it to the list so that our discussion of protecting consumers remains public? Thanks in advance. Regards, Paul From: McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:15 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'James Gannon'; 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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<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(a)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.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
by McGrady, Paul D. July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

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 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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<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(a)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.

1 0

Updated Public Comment Review Tool (Part 1)
by Mary Wong July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Dear all, Per the suggestion made during the last WG call - to ³collapse² all single Yes/No responses to the template of recommendations and questions that was provided as an additional avenue for public comment please find attached the first part of the Public Comment Review Tool, updated accordingly. Staff has not made any changes to the original version circulated prior to the last call other than this. We will proceed to compile similar Review Tools for the rest of the recommendations and questions (starting from where Part 1 leaves off, I.e. Preliminary Recommendation #9), including for the open questions (i.e. Section 1.3.2, Section 1.3.3 and Annex E from the Initial Report). In relation to the ongoing discussion as to the best way to ensure a thorough and effective review of all the comments that were submitted, staff notes that there is currently an unfilled section in Part 1 of the Review Tool. Titled Section I, it is intended as a placeholder for a summary of the various statements of principle and suggestions that were received (including via the form letters that many commenters based their contributions on). These can perhaps also be ³collapsed² in a similar way to the template responses, to allow for them to be considered but without inputting each comment into an individual entry in the Tool (on the understanding that this would complement WG members¹ reading of the actual comments, as has been suggested on the list). 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

A proposed approach for reviewing public comments
by Mary Wong July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

> Hello Susan and everyone, > > Yes, one factor that we have tried to take into consideration in each update > of our Work Plan has been the expiration date of the current interim > specification (1/1/2017). As the date currently stands, the implementation of > many of our current preliminary recommendations (if ultimately adopted by the > GNSO Council and the Board) will likely take considerable time, including > giving affected registrars and providers sufficient lead time for execution > prior to the run-out date. In addition, our WG has yet to discuss whether any > of the feedback provided on our preliminary recommendations to date by ICANN > operational staff might affect those recommendations or their phrasing. > > None of this is to suggest, of course, that staff does not support the WG¹s > desire to perform a thorough review of all the public comments received; > however, that¹s the context for the last few iterations of our Work Plan and > time line. > > 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 > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com> > Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 18:35 > To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for reviewing public > comments > >> Hi Mary, >> >> Thanks for all the hard work on the comments. It is really helpful. >> >> If we delay and do not get the final report delivered by the Dublin meeting >> does that run us into the expiration date of the specification? I just want >> to be sure there is other motivation for delaying this work. >> >> Best, >> Susan Kawaguchi >> Domain Name Manager >> Facebook Legal Dept. >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064 >> >> >> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> >> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 3:50 PM >> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)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 ³test case² for the >> exercise. >> * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a ³first pass² 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 ³collapse² (per James¹ 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

1 0

Sorting of public comments
by Mary Wong July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

Dear all, Further to my note below, we have sorted the public comment into two rough categories that we hope will assist with your review of them: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ordered-comments-ppsai-initial-05may15.html. You¹ll note that there are basically two ³categories², the difference being that for one we included all messages that were received with particular words/phrases in the subject title and as such tagged as messages that originated with a template or form email. The other category is basically everything else. As this sorting was based on subject title rather than a content search, some template/form messages will not have been identified and placed in the first category. 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 10, 2015 at 21:04 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: For your review - Public Comment Review Tool (v1) and other documents > Dear WG members, > > Please find attached for your review in preparation for the WG meeting next > week on 14 July: (1) the first version of the Public Comment Review Tool; (2) > an overview summary chart of the responses received to the Template for > Responses that we provided as an alternative feedback mechanism to the Public > Comment Forum; and (3) a selected compilation from all the comments received > in the Public Comment Forum. > > Please note the following: > For (1) - this incorporates all Template responses received covering the first > 9 of the WG¹s 20 Preliminary Recommendations. It therefore is not a complete > collection of all the responses received to all the preliminary > recommendations, and does not include comments on the WG¹s open questions. > This version of the Tool also incorporates those comments received in the > Public Comment Forum that specifically addressed one or more of the 9 > preliminary recommendations covered. As staff continues to collate and catalog > the remaining Template responses and public comments, we will prepare a second > version of the Tool. We hope to be able to complete this exercise by the end > of next week, if at all possible however, for now we wanted to get what we > were able to do since the Forum closed on Tuesday to you as early as we could. > > For (2) - this was derived from the 352 Template responses we received, of > which 208 were started but not filled out (although at least one person then > sent their responses to the Forum as a public comment, and it would appear > that a few others returned and filled out at least part of the Template as a > separate response subsequently). > > For (3) - please note the disclaimer and explanation included in the document. > This document was prepared in the hope that it would help WG members as you go > through the over 11,400 public comments received but it is a collection of > excerpts only and as such not at all a comprehensive representation of either > the scope, variety or number of responses in the Forum. > > Finally, again in the hope that it will aid your review of the public > comments, our IT department will be categorizing all the comments into at > least two groups, one being those that originated with form or template > letters. We will send that to you as soon as we receive it; please note, > however, that the ³separation² can only be done by subject title and as such > there will be some form letters that are not captured this way. > > Please let us know if we have made any errors or omissions in our compilation > and collation! > > 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 > > >

6 9