July 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Proposed Alternative Timeline
by James Gannon July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

Hi All, I've been thinking after our call yesterday and would like to suggest the following points to the group: Due to the volume of substantive and possibly constructive comments received we need to reassess our timeline to completion of our work. We have hundreds of objective non-ironic comments to analyze and respond to and possible incorporate, a quick commercial sentiment analysis on the non-petition based comments (i.e excluding name cheap and the save domain privacy comments for the purposes of the sentiment analysis) yields the following: [cid:image002.png@01D0BEEF.15E4ED10] This work can be possibly be done using the sub team proposal as defined by Mary last night. But I feel that our current timeline, while appropriate at the time, will not allow us to have the sufficient bandwidth to give these comments the time and attention that we need. Given that our work is now coming into the holiday period where many of us will need time to be with family and take vacation we need to accept the reality of the current proposed timeline. I would therefore suggest that we assess the following proposal to refactor our timeline with the December 17th GNSO Council meeting (I believe this date is correct Mary can you confirm) as our target for submission to the GNSO Council as opposed to Dublin. [cid:image005.png@01D0BEF3.888E1E50] This would allow us to have 3 full review and incorporate cycles to work with, which could be done either as a whole or using subgroups, and the possibility of a F2F in Dublin if required to address any outstanding issues of divergence within the WG. It will also give us time to work on the outstanding issues before the group that we have still not addressed to completion such as LEA requests and a number of sections that are still under active discussion within the WG. I personally believe that this approach will allow us to be both efficient while recognizing that we have previously committed in public statements to deliver our report in 'Late 2015' such as the statement in the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Preliminary Issue<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en> Report which states: "The PPSAI Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015 and currently expects to publish its Final Report in late-2015" We can be clear to both our communities and also to the greater public at large that we are reassessing our timeline in order to sufficiently respond to the volume of comments and to recognize the important of the work that we now have ahead of us to ensure that these comments are incorporated where possible. I think that this is a fair timeline for everyone involved and I hope that the group and the chairs will consider it to be presented in good faith to attempt to give everyone involved time to come to consensus on this most important set of issues. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg

3 3

Public Comments
by Graeme Bunton July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

Hi All, I had a kind developer at Tucows 'screen scrape' all of the PPSAI public comments. This means they wrote a program that essentially visited all*of the comments submitted and captured: -the sender -the subject -the body of the message - a url for any attachments - a url for the comment itself online To those fields I've added: - Has Attachment (Y/N) - this allows for easy filtering of comments with attachments - NameCheap (Y/N) - this flag is generated if the message body contains the words "regardless of whether the request comes from a private individual" which comes from the templated namecheap comments.** -Word count - allows for sorting by comment length Screenscraping is never exact, and it has a tough time with some formatting. By and large though it's pretty good and I've found it useful so far for triaging and prioritizing comments. Caveats: * I know it's missing about 15 or so comments, I've figured out a way to identify which are missing and will send those along tomorrow. ** There are many namecheap comments where the sender chose to write their own text and therefore the above phrase is not included, these don't have the Y flag. Similarly, many with the flag will include extra content the sender chose to add. These can be identified by applying a filter on the namecheap column and then sorting by wordcount. The above phrase was chosen because it was long enough to be unlikely to show up in in other comments. This is obviously not perfect at identify those comments. With a bit of excel expertise you should be able to filter and sort the submitted comments as you see fit. We have an obligation to read what's been submitted, and I hope you find the attached makes reading the comments easier, and that it's helpful in understanding what the public is telling us. Graeme (Also, apologies to ICANN for the punishment we gave their webservers while testing and scraping the comments) -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

1 1

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 14 July 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 14 July 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-14jul15-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 Griffin Barnett - 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 Chris Pelling - RrSG Roger Carney - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Sarah Wyld - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Paul McGrady - IPC Vicky Sheckler - IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG Graeme Bunton - RrSG Don Blumenthal - RySG Sara Bockey - RrSG Keith Kupferschmid - IPC Amr Elsadr-NCUC James Gannon - NCUC Rudi Vansnick - NPOC David Hughes - IPC Carlton Samuels - ALAC Apologies : Michele Neylon - RrSG Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Prosser - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Stephen Miller Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 14 July 2015 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 14 July 2015 Chris Pelling:Afternoon all :) Chris Pelling:Hi Terri and Mary Terri Agnew:Hi Chris Chris Pelling:can you zoom in on the document please Terri Agnew:Sync has been turned on, zoom should work for everyone Chris Pelling:ta :) Chris Pelling:I heard that :) Chris Pelling:the shared document has "vanished" by the way Mary Wong:@Chris, sorry, I was uploading something else. Which document were you in the midst of reading? Chris Pelling:just the one that was here, I was busy fiddling to get it on the screen at max res so I dont have to move it around :) Graeme Bunton:Mary, think you could bring up the workplan to start please? Graeme Bunton:thx! Graeme Bunton:brb Graeme Bunton:back Bladel:Hi Don! Don Blumenthal:Hello James Kathy K:Hi All! Chris Pelling:HI Don :) Terri Agnew:Paul McGrady and Vicky Sheckler has joined Terri Agnew:Susan Kawaguchi has joined audio Don Blumenthal:Gee,, you'd think I've been gone for awhke, :) Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Stephanie Perrin:I agree with what James and Kathy have said.....if we cannot make this deadline, we will just have to miss the deadline. This is an accountability issue folks. Terri Agnew:James Gannon has joined James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Sorry Im late guys Terri Agnew:Rudi Vansnick has joined Rudi Vansnick:sorry for being late, adobe connect issues Amr Elsadr:Ok. A link to the public comment review tool might be good enough. Thanks. Rudi Vansnick:please note I'm replacing Marie-Laure Lemineur / NPOC in this WG Terri Agnew:@Rudi, thank you for this Don Blumenthal:Welcone to the group, Rudi Kathy K:+1 James - as it incorporates all comment input Rudi Vansnick (NPOC):thanks Don Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio Kathy K:+1 James G: our timeline was developed around the usual 7-15 comments received... Amr Elsadr:@James: +1. Review of public comments for other WGs have commonly taken longer than three calls with far fewer comments than the ones submitted here. Bladel:Agree. And aside from the volume of comments, we should also ackonwledge the media attention. Bladel:Not sure if Stephanie is responding to my intervention but that's not exactly what I was proposing. Amr Elsadr:@James: The media attention is a good point. It might not be a bad idea for the leadership team to draft some sort of statement describing how the comments were reviewed/incorporated once we're done. Not sure if this has ever beed done before. Stephanie Perrin:Actually James, I was more responding to the comments that Steve Metalitz had submitted to the comments period, I think I understand what you were driving at but perhaps you should give it another go.... Vicky Sheckler:i engourage you to read the COA comments as they relate to the petition entries Bladel:@Amr - Good idea. They should coordinate with the STaff /Communications team. Mary Wong:@Amr, the co-chairs have agreed to do a blog post about our process, to follow up on David Olive's on the PDP from last week Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Great. :) Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Carlton Samuels:Had a time getting here James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Im not sure about subgroups analysing comments, comment analysis is usually done in the whole Stephanie Perrin:Glad you made it Carlton, I have to leave in a minute so you can have my proxy (joke) Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: More input is a great success +1 Carlton Samuels:@Steph I am so honoured :-) Marika Konings:@James - in the CWG the sub-team / design team approach worked pretty well to aid with the review of comments Chris Pelling:I totally agree with James G Marika Konings:CWG-Stewardship I should say ;-) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Mariks yes but the DT's where about the size of this whole WG in many cases Marika Konings:mmm, I don't think that is true...most of the DT only consisted of 3-4 active members. Marika Konings:and in any case, anything would always come back to the full group for review Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I have to leave now, apologies Amr Elsadr:I'm guessing that using sub-teams will actually take longer. Sub-team review of comments will have to be reviewed a second time by the rest of the WG members. If enough questions and changes to the initial review are asked/made, it might be quicker for the whole group to just go through them once. Terri Agnew:goodbye Lindsay Marika Konings:@Amr - from experience, most discussion typically relates to WG action that is recommended based on the comments received, not necessarily formulating responses to comments that may not require further action. Kathy K:Tx for all of this work, Mary! Marika Konings:the formulatiing of responses is also something that can be done online (e.g. creation of a wiki page or google document that can be used for collaboration and formulation of responses) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Marika, Im not vehementaly against it, but I'd have to see the mechanisms by how we would approach it in detial to ensure that we dont lose anything in the process Stephanie Perrin:Yes indeed, thanks to everyone who has been toiling away on this, a tremendous amount of work. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes staff are doing fantastic! Stephanie Perrin:Sorry have to run! Will check the audio. Marika Konings:@James - yes, agreed. Just putting out some ideas on how the group can manage it effectively in efficiently without necessarily having to go through each line of text on a call with everyone on. Marika Konings:and yes, Mary's work should hopefully assist with that :-) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:=) We woud be lucky to finish by 2117 if we did that =) Kathy K:@Marika: do you have a wiki example of what you are referencing - it would be great to see how wikis have been used Marika Konings:Exactly! :-) Marika Konings:let me check - I think some of the CWG-Stewardship DTs used google docs, but there may also have been wiki pages. Kathy K:Great, tx Kathy K:! Bladel:Thanks to Graeme & the folks at Tucows for putting this together. Alex Deacon:This is very helpful Graene - thanks for putting this togehter. Mary Wong:Sorry it's taking so long to upload - it's a huge spreadsheet; you should all have it in email. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Not machine generated, lets be careful about or classification of those comments guys. Philip Corwin:I'm not seeing Graeme's spreadsheet -- will it be distributed? steve metalitz:@Phil it was sent to list last night. Philip Corwin:OK, will search mail for it Amr Elsadr:Good catch Kathy. steve metalitz:@Kathy, good point, but filtering for attachments should help avoid that problem. Philip Corwin:Found the doc. Thanks Graeme Marika Konings:@Kathy - here is a CWG-Stewardship example: https://community.icann.org/x/2RwnAw. Staff identified which comments were relevant to DT O (IANA Budget), the design team then collaborated via email and teleconference to identify draft responses to the comments and recommended to the CWG which action should be taken based on the comments received in the final proposal. The CWG would then either adopt the proposed approach or discuss any items it did not agree with or had questions about. Mary Wong:The idea is still that people will look through the whole spreadsheet and flag comemnts that should be addressed by the WG rather than "collapsed" James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:12000 rows of goodness =) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think we broke adobe Mary Wong::) Kathy K:@Marika: interesting. Definitely a great model! Vicky Sheckler:+1 to metalitz' suggestion Carlton Samuels:I can't hear Steve at all! Graeme Bunton:He's loud and clear to me, Carlton Chris Pelling:Graeme, SteveM is quite quiet oover here too iun the UK Chris Pelling:yes I would prefer extending the call Todd Williams:Steve's approach makes sense. Can we divide into those three groups on the email list and then go from there? James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:We need to discuss the process before we go any further on the subteams approach Vicky Sheckler:agree with Todd Carlton Samuels:I prefer furhter categorisation then we should take the committee of the whole approach; means we might have to extend the calls Philip Corwin:I would prefer longer calls as opposed to additional calls. Bladel:Need to drop. Sorry. Don Blumenthal:I think that we need to post alterbatives to then ertire group before moving forward. Carlton Samuels:It will require some tight call management but we have good managers Darcy Southwell:I would prefer longer calls rather than more calls, too. Sara Bockey:need to drop. sorry Chris Pelling:Many thanks to all :) have a great week ahead and will see the comments in the emails :) Marika Konings:You could consider doing a test case for one specific category? Marika Konings:and see whether it works Chris Pelling:Thanks Graeme Kathy K:Tx for the call today, Graeme and All! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:That might be a good ap[proach marika take a smple one and try it Carlton Samuels:Bye all Rudi Vansnick (NPOC):thanks, bye all Carlton Samuels:Thanks Graeme have a good time Darcy Southwell:Thanks all!

1 0

Agenda for WG call tomorrow (14 July)
by Mary Wong July 13, 2015

July 13, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 14 July: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Staff overview of preliminary work done to date on review of public comments 3. Discussion of WG approach to reviewing public comments e.g. further categorization of comments; use of sub-teams, etc. 4. Next steps Also, please find attached a proposed Work Plan that staff had prepared for the WG co-chairs prior to the Buenos Aires meeting. Although this draft was prepared before we knew the number and type of public comments that would be coming in, we thought you might find it useful to see the timeline between now and the Dublin 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

For your review - Public Comment Review Tool (v1) and other documents
by Mary Wong July 10, 2015

July 10, 2015

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

1 0