August 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

With apologies: MP3 sub team 1.3.2 - Monday 27 July 2015 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

Dear all, My deepest apologies! Mary pointed out that only the transcription of this call had been received and not the mp3 nor attendance. I then checked my drafts and there was the request. Once again, apologies for the inconvenience!! Kind regards Nathalie From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:12 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: MP3 sub team 1.3.2 - Monday 27 July 2015 at 20:00 UTC Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the sub team 1.3.2 call held on Monday 27 July 2015 at 20:00 UTC at:https://icann.box.com/shared/static/fd2nhu0eu1xjtzl1a2jn4ey9smds7r9w.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9a…> Attendees: Alex Deacon IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 11 August 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 11, 2015

Aug. 11, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 11 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-11aug15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug 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 Stephanie Perrin NCSG Terri Stumme BC Todd Williams IPC Vicky Sheckler IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG Griffin Barnett- IPC David Cake - NCSG Sara Bockey RrSG Don Blumenthal RySG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick Individual Holly Raiche ALAC Steve Metalitz – IPC James Gannon NCUC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Rudi Vansnick – NPOC James Bladel RrSG Chris Pelling – RrSG Susan Kawaguchi – BC Paul McGrady IPC David Hughes - IPC Apologies : Dick Leaning – Individual Carlton Samuels – ALAC Phil Corwin - BC Don Blumenthal - RySG Marika Konings -Staff Amy Bivins - Staff ICANN staff: Mary Wong 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 11 August 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 11th August 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:@ Holly, the operator will be dialing out to you shortly James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hey everyone Graeme Bunton:We'll get started at 1 or 2 mins after as per usual Chris Pelling:Afternoon all Holly Raiche:morning all Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Kathy Kleiman and Osvaldo Novoa have joined the AC room Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo and everyone, no worries, Todd is just going through the Sub Team's initial analysis of Annex E. Nathalie Peregrine:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid has joined the AC roomm Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies for being late. Nathalie Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:As has Volker Greimann James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I belive we have the drafters on the call. I suggest we ask them rather than guessing. Chris Pelling:+1 James Mary Wong:One potential issue with that (as noted for the Sub team) is that while the drafters may have a certain meaning in mind, tsome of he 10,042 signatories may have had a different meaning in mind. stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy steve metalitz:+1 Mary Vicky Sheckler:+1 mary Nathalie Peregrine:David Hughes is also on the audio bridge Mary Wong:The Sub Team has distinguished between signing the petition and submitting additional comments alongside (see the [x] in the paragraph that discusses the Save Domain Privacy petition. Nathalie Peregrine:Sara Bockey has joined the AC room Mary Wong:They plan to ask the drafters of the petition for the number that is [x]. Sara Bockey:apologies for my lateness Kathy K:I think James focuses on an area of additional work - the substance of the comments submitted along with the petition. James Bladel:200+ comments, while a minority of the campaign signatures, is still quite a large number, IMO. Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think if you look at the media coverage and oped's that were pointing people towards both petitions were clearly advocating against the premise of Annex E. I would seriously disagree on the interpreseation of the comments as supportive of Annex E. James Bladel:+1 James. I think considering these signatures as support of Annex E (as written in the Initial Report) is the larger assumption. Mary Wong:Maybe it's not possible to have a single characterization of what the signatories as a group supported or not. Perhaps the WG can consider highlighting/noting that there was a peition signed by 10,042 people that spoke to the issue, but include a further analysis/summary of what the additional comments said more specifically (to the extent they said anything specific, e.g. court order). Todd Williams:Got to run, thanks everybody. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wicheevr we look at it we will ahve over 11000 comments in opposition to the basic premise of Ammex E. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wow terrible spelling Graeme Bunton:Thanks Todd Graeme Bunton:great work on this. Holly Raiche:I like James' suggestion that it should be read in light of the use of the term in the RAA Darcy Southwell:+1 James G. Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I think we also have to remember that while these comments are relevant, they were not, as far as I am aware, given in as part of the public comments to the initial report. I am therefore unsure how much time we should spend on them in relation to the report due to time contraints. Vicky Sheckler:+1 steve Holly Raiche:Both a court order and Ssubpoena a least require a court/justice - i.e., a third, judicial person, to make a decision on what should or should not be done James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think we are treating our commenters as experienced laywers who have extensive experience in legal terminology and application of legal phrasing. They are not. Kathy K:Mission accepted, Graeme val sherman:To my knowledge, these meanings of verifiable vs verified are common steve metalitz:Agree that the subteam has done an excellent job in teeing up thse issues. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Well I certaintly wouldnt have made the distinction that is being made here. Mybe its a US commonality. val sherman:But we cannot say that those petitioned didn't understand the difference; rather, we should assume that they did. Kathy K:Adding to Steve: complaints before a court are subject to rules, including sanctions for misrepresentation. It's a high bar. We have no such enforcement mechanisms here steve metalitz:@James good point about minimum/maximum standards. One reason why rule barring disclosure without court order would be extremely difficult to maintain. Mary Wong:@James, I'm not American and would say I've understood the distinction since before moving to the US (note that this does NOT mean I/staff support any one or other suggested approach being discussed). James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Termination is different to disclusure/prublication... termination does not require the details to be published, uness Im misunderstanding stephanie Perrin:Good point James G stephanie Perrin:However something does have to go in the whois James Bladel:"Non-automated comments"? Volker A. Greimann:if that is your interpretation of what they say, maybe the best solution is to scrap this projet Volker A. Greimann:project Volker A. Greimann:(i am not advocating that, just noting it as a possible result) James Bladel:To my knowledge, none of the comments received were automated. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:What automated comments? Frank Michlick:"automated comments"? Frank Michlick:every comment was submitted by a person that initiated that process. James Bladel:Please explain "automated comments" James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:If we are going down this route and approach then should we read the comments as not supporting an accreditation regime at all then. Mary Wong:@James, a couple of comments addressed this point specifically but a number offered suggestions based on the assumption that there would be such a program. Having read most of the comments, I'm honestly not sure how that would help. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Maybe its a point we should take to "No comment left behind" a James Bladel:@Stephanie - Your comment aligns with the other text on the SDP campaign site. Vicky Sheckler:stephanie - under every p/p terms of service that i've read, part of the deal is that you don't use the domain for unlawful purposes James Bladel:@Vicky - correct. Nothing in the SDP campaign indicated that p/p providers would harbor or tolerate criminal activity. stephanie Perrin:I understand that Vicky, but that does not mean anyone can allege illegal activity and find out who you aer. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes and the rightfu definer of hat is unlawful is the courts and LEO. Vicky Sheckler:taking a "but for" approach to responsibility in an interconnected world is problematic and undermines the sytem steve metalitz:@Kathy, this is a different cost recovery process from the one addressed by subteam on 1.3.2 steve metalitz:One is for relay, one is for disclose Kathy K:Right! stephanie Perrin:Yes on more time, I have not got through all the comments yet, dont know about everyone else... James Bladel:Excluding lawers/law firms from this framework opens up a huge loophole, IMO. Concerned that good guy P/P providers would have to compete against providers hiding behind this exclusion. Chris Pelling:I beleive this is then unfair James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think that might exclude some regisrtars no? Chris Pelling:if the "service" is being offered, it is being offered by a level playing field stephanie Perrin:I dont understand how this addresses the cybercrime problem....it merely means organized criminals act through lawyers who set up firms specializing in proxy services. James Bladel:Looked at the clock and lowered my hand. :) Frank Michlick:But how do you enforce including lawyers in this? I think they should fall under this, but that would mean a change of the standard registration agreement forbidding lawyers to use their information for their clients unless they are awhois privacy/proxy provider accreddited with ICANN. steve metalitz:+1Kathy, this is an "issue spotting" phase, not for detailed discussion now. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes I would see that as a very complex issue. stephanie Perrin:That sounds doable Frank.... stephanie Perrin:We already did put the lawyer issue aside... Mary Wong:@Steve, yes - it would be really helpful if WG members can issue-spot. Kathy K:Lawyers and others (registered agent services) who might be providing extensive proxy/privacy services steve metalitz:@Let's spot the issues in 2-9 on list please! Frank Michlick:It was just brought up before... Most recently similar whois I noticed was Google's/Alphabet's abc.xyz - should DNSstitation in whois. James Bladel:Eastern Daylight. :) Frank Michlick:(it was brought up in the call) Frank Michlick:thanks everyone Mary Wong:Please send your issues to the llst. IT will help us keep track. James Bladel:Thanks, Graeme & team. Chris Pelling:thanks# Osvaldo Novoa:Thank and By James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:thanks all Kathy K:Tx Graeme, tx all! Rudi Vansnick:bye Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks all val sherman:thanks all

1 0

Summary document from Sub Team 3 for WG call on Tuesday 11 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 11, 2015

Aug. 11, 2015

Hello again everyone, Please find attached the latest draft summary document from Sub Team 3, who are working on the initial review of the public comments received for Annex E (the illustrative disclosure framework for IP rights-holders). As this is the first, preliminary report from the Sub Team, do note that this is a draft document only, and certain aspects of it may be updated and/or changed by the Sub Team as it proceeds with its analysis. During the update on the WG call on Tuesday, the Sub Team will go through this summary and highlight for the full WG aspects of its work for which it would welcome WG feedback. As always, this and all the various Sub Teams¹ documents as well as recordings from Sub Team calls (if any) are available on the respective Sub Team tabs on the WG wiki. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:06 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 11 August > Dear all, > > Here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 11 August: > 1. Roll call/updates to SOI > 2. Initial report/update from Sub Team 3 on Annex E (document will be sent out > later today) > 3. Review of specific issues identified by WG members as arising from public > comments on WG preliminary recommendations #1 through #9 > 4. Next steps > As has been the case for the past couple of meetings, please feel free to > raise any specific issues you have identified from your review of the public > comments under Agenda Item 3 on this mailing list before tomorrow. > > 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

Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 11 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 11 August: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Initial report/update from Sub Team 3 on Annex E (document will be sent out later today) 3. Review of specific issues identified by WG members as arising from public comments on WG preliminary recommendations #1 through #9 4. Next steps As has been the case for the past couple of meetings, please feel free to raise any specific issues you have identified from your review of the public comments under Agenda Item 3 on this mailing list before tomorrow. 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

Public Comment Review Tool Part 2
by Mary Wong Aug. 9, 2015

Aug. 9, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached Part 2 of the overall WG Public Comment Review Tool. Picking up from where Part 1 (WG preliminary recommendations #1-9) left off, this document covers the WG¹s preliminary recommendations #10-15 (following the numbering in the WG¹s Initial Report). The final document Part 3 will cover the remaining preliminary recommendations (save for those that have been taken up by the various Sub-Teams), these being: (1) initial provider actions to relay on receipt of a disclosure request; (2) notification in the event of persistent delivery failure; and (3) recommendations covering de-accreditation. There are also general comments and additional suggestions that do not fit perfectly into any of the recommendations or open question categories, and we will include these in Part 3 of the Tool as well. As a reminder, do note that neither Part 1 (circulated previously) or Part 2 (attached) of the overall WG Public Comment Review Tool includes those comments that are being reviewed preliminarily by the Sub Teams. These are: Sub Team 1 - escalation of relay requests, and open questions on disclosure/publication by non-IP requesters Sub Team 2 Section 1.3.3 (domains associated with online financial transactions relating to commercial activities) Sub Team 3 Annex E (illustrative disclosure framework for IP requesters) In addition, there is a Sub Team 4 that is preparing a possible list of Additional Topics not otherwise specifically covered by comments categorized according to the WG¹s preliminary recommendations/open questions. Please accept our apologies that we were not able to complete the entire Tool by this weekend as we had originally set out to do. We hope that this new Part 2 will nevertheless allow the WG to proceed in good time with its review of the community input received. 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] Moving forward with a WG F2F meeting in Dublin
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Aug. 8, 2015

Aug. 8, 2015

Mary Thanks for the update. @RrSG members in this group – you should have an email from me directly about this. 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 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Saturday 8 August 2015 01:09 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Moving forward with a WG F2F meeting in Dublin Dear WG members, After careful consideration, the WG co-chairs have decided that it may be useful to hold a F2F meeting on Friday 16 October in Dublin. The decision was made taking into account the results of the Doodle poll, previous WG discussions on the topic, and the status of WG and Sub Team deliberations at this point in our process. Having decided to move forward with the F2F meeting, the co-chairs would like to emphasize that a successful outcome of that meeting depends on a number of factors. These include timely reports from the various Sub Teams as well as the WG’s completing its review of the remaining recommendations that were not assigned to the Sub Teams. The expectation is that the F2F meeting will focus on the outstanding issues that remain at that time, and it will be planned in order to try to resolve those questions through the F2F discussions. As with previous such F2F meetings, travel support will only be provided for 6 hotel nights per SG/SO/AC, with no airfare or other support available. Each SG/SO/AC may therefore nominate up to 6 participants, with the important caveat that nominees should ideally be already active participants in the WG (this may be especially important given where our group is at this stage in our deliberations). If there are fewer than 6 nominees from one SG/SO/AC, the nominees may each receive up to 2 nights of hotel support. The WG chairs have the discretion of allotting any unused slots to other participants in order to achieve a desired level of diversity and representativeness at the meeting. Thank you for your patience and for participating in the discussions concerning the meeting. We will circulate a proposed agenda for the meeting closer to the time, when we will have a better sense of where the WG’s discussions will be by the time we get to Dublin. The schedule will take into account overnight flight schedules as much as possible. As noted previously, remote participation facilities will be available for those who wish to participate but who will not be in Dublin in person. Have a good weekend, everyone! 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>

1 0

Moving forward with a WG F2F meeting in Dublin
by Mary Wong Aug. 8, 2015

Aug. 8, 2015

Dear WG members, After careful consideration, the WG co-chairs have decided that it may be useful to hold a F2F meeting on Friday 16 October in Dublin. The decision was made taking into account the results of the Doodle poll, previous WG discussions on the topic, and the status of WG and Sub Team deliberations at this point in our process. Having decided to move forward with the F2F meeting, the co-chairs would like to emphasize that a successful outcome of that meeting depends on a number of factors. These include timely reports from the various Sub Teams as well as the WG¹s completing its review of the remaining recommendations that were not assigned to the Sub Teams. The expectation is that the F2F meeting will focus on the outstanding issues that remain at that time, and it will be planned in order to try to resolve those questions through the F2F discussions. As with previous such F2F meetings, travel support will only be provided for 6 hotel nights per SG/SO/AC, with no airfare or other support available. Each SG/SO/AC may therefore nominate up to 6 participants, with the important caveat that nominees should ideally be already active participants in the WG (this may be especially important given where our group is at this stage in our deliberations). If there are fewer than 6 nominees from one SG/SO/AC, the nominees may each receive up to 2 nights of hotel support. The WG chairs have the discretion of allotting any unused slots to other participants in order to achieve a desired level of diversity and representativeness at the meeting. Thank you for your patience and for participating in the discussions concerning the meeting. We will circulate a proposed agenda for the meeting closer to the time, when we will have a better sense of where the WG¹s discussions will be by the time we get to Dublin. The schedule will take into account overnight flight schedules as much as possible. As noted previously, remote participation facilities will be available for those who wish to participate but who will not be in Dublin in person. Have a good weekend, everyone! 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

2 1

New blog post by our co-chairs
by Mary Wong Aug. 7, 2015

Aug. 7, 2015

Dear WG members, You may be interested to know that our co-chairs have just published a blog post about the status of our work on the ICANN blogsite: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ppsai-wg-status-update-and-observations. 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

2 2

Last call - Doodle poll for F2F meeting
by Mary Wong Aug. 5, 2015

Aug. 5, 2015

Hello everyone, In view of the looming deadline for ICANN-supported travelers and the overall need for everyone planning their schedules for the Dublin meeting to know the dates and times of their meetings, the WG chairs would like to ask those who have not yet filled in the Doodle poll to do so as soon as is convenient, and not later than tomorrow (Thursday) 23:59 UTC: http://doodle.com/fpxdbavge58n3qk3 This will allow them to make a decision as to whether or not to go ahead with a F2F meeting on Friday 16 October in Dublin by this Friday, with input from as many WG members as possible. Thank you! 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 04 August 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 4, 2015

Aug. 4, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 04 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-04aug15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug 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 Stephanie Perrin NCSG Phil Corwin BC Terri Stumme BC Todd Williams IPC Vicky Sheckler IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG Griffin Barnett- IPC David Cake - NCSG Sara Bockey RrSG Don Blumenthal RySG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick Individual Michele Neylon RrSG Holly Raiche ALAC Steve Metalitz - IPC James Gannon NCUC Sarah Wyld - RrSG David Heasley - IPC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Darcy Southwell - RrSG Rudi Vansnick - NPOC Luc Seufer - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Chris Pelling - RrSG Susan Kawaguchi - BC Apologies : Alex Deacon IPC Susan Prosser - RrSG James Bladel RrSG Dick Leaning - Individual Paul McGrady IPC Kiran Malancharuvil- IPC Marika Konings -Staff ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins 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 04 August 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 4th August 2015 Osvaldo Novoa:Hello allç Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo, hello everybody Terri Agnew:Welcome Vicky Sheckler Terri Agnew:Finding line Terri Agnew:Welcome Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Mary Wong:The agenda is in the right hand pod Terri Agnew:Welcome Phil Corwin Graeme Bunton:it's there, need to scroll that pane up Terri Agnew:Welcome Rudi Vansnick Stephanie Perrin:did we lose sound or is noone talkng? Mary Wong:Audio is on, Stephanie Michele Neylon:sound working fine here Terri Agnew:Welcome James Gannon Kathy K:Hi All Terri Agnew:Welcome Kathy Kleiman Kathy K:I think Subteam 2 is still pretty new... Kathy K:I appreciate the summary, but there is so much more to do!! Michele Neylon:Oddly enough that's the question I would have asked Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer Terri Agnew:Welcome David Cake James Gannon (Listen Only):Good methodology Lindsay very clear and easy to get a feel for the comments Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels Carlton Samuels:Howdy all. My apologies for the late boarding James Gannon (Listen Only):I think Kathys point is that the SDP commenters should be relevent to 1.3.3 Vicky Sheckler:isn't that the reason we have the subgroup 4? Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Thanks James. Graeme Bunton:SDP comments are NOT templated Graeme Bunton:There was no prepopulated text, and text was optional Kathy K:New hand, Steve, response to Mary Mary Wong:@Graeme, apologies - as I mentioned, we also did not include "petition based" submissions. Mary Wong:As noted, we were not certain that should be a staff decision to include or not. Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:We should look at all comments in relation to the questions. It may mean extending all the timescales. Carlton Samuels:@Holly: The "Nos" have it! Vicky Sheckler:+1 w/ steve metalitz' comments Carlton Samuels:@Steve: I agree its not a 'plebiscite'. But I'm thinking since we asked the question, the responses should be seen at least as 'the sense of the room'. Don Blumenthal:Please go on mute if you are not speaking. Volker A. Greimann:I object to the comment or characterization of any comments as machine-generated. Michele Neylon:audio is not very clear Volker A. Greimann:On knowledge and belief, every comment and signature was made by a live human Mary Wong:Just to clarify - staff did not mean to exclude anyone; we just did not believe we should decide on what to do with petition and template-based submissions. We are happy to add/include if that is what the WG decides. Vicky Sheckler:i object to how the document that solicited the comments was misledaing the failure of this group to address this. David Cake:I strongly agree with Michele Carlton Samuels:@Michele +1. Sara Bockey:+1 Michele Frank Michlick:Michele +1 Volker A. Greimann:"misleading the the failure of this group to address this"? What does that mean, Vicky? Luc Seufer:Exactly. Disregarding the voice of those users would go against the spirit of ICANN PDP Frank Michlick:If you consider any of the comments machine generated you better be able to back up that claim. David Cake:Of course they are not machine generated etc. Every single one of those signatures was (as far as we know) a real, genuine person. Vicky Sheckler:please see the COA comments about problems with how the petition comments were generated Volker A. Greimann:how is reaching out to the users of these services different from the usual campaigns to flood the comments with identical form letters by the IP? Terri Agnew:@James, we are unable to hear you. Let me know if a dial out is needed. Volker A. Greimann:they were not generated, Vicky, they were submitted James Gannon:go ahead James Gannon:mic problems Michele Neylon:Kathy - you might be too close to your mic Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1 ICANN remains challenged to reach end users. As a standing member of the At-Large I am very familiar with the challenges in this area Vicky Sheckler:Volker - please read the COA comments. misleading the public to obtain comments is a concern that we need to consider. Graeme Bunton:Breaking up a bit James Frank Michlick:audio is cuting out Carlton Samuels:James is breaking up in my ear Volker A. Greimann:Just because you do not agree with the points made does not make them misleading Vicky Sheckler:the fact that the peittion did not accurately explain the document does make it misleading. please read the COA comments for a full discretion of the problems. Mary Wong:@James, it will now be for each Sub Team to decide how /where to add the relevant comments. Sara Bockey:+1 James G James Gannon:Sorry for bad audio Kathy K:old hand Carlton Samuels:@James: Yes, there should be space to address and analyze themes that are not related to specific questions. The comments must be embraced and analyzed. Volker A. Greimann:the petition linked to the report very clearly. summarizing all of it was necessry Vicky Sheckler:+1 val Volker A. Greimann:have you read the report? it is very long! Luc Seufer:The provider campaign was public, could we see the material presented to IP holders by IPC members and also be provided with proof that they all read the report? James Gannon:We dont double guess the primary sources for other commenters opinoins, I do not agree with us doing it in this case. val sherman:Yes i have Volker. Several times. Kathy K:Tx Val! @Mary, can we include the petition and template now? Mary Wong:@Kathy, each Sub Team can add as they decide. Volker A. Greimann:val, do you expect every commenter to do so? Kathy K:@Mary, when staff leaves these comments out of the template they are very easy to overlook Vicky Sheckler:+1 todd Volker A. Greimann:not everyone who is invested in his privacy has the time (or is paid for his time) to read all that val sherman:I hope that commenters have access to a fair representation of the contents of the report when commenting on its substance David Cake:Strongly expressed opinions should be respected. Vicky Sheckler:which makes it incumbent upon us in the workign group to not mislead ppl when / if we solicit comments from others James Gannon:To a point I agree Todd, my primary issue with my interevention was our making classifications of commenters. Our analysis of each comment will then give us that weighting to each comment depending on its substance. Holly Raiche:I think it is important to at least note the number of comments made against the relevant points of the report - and agree with Wolker and Stephannie - not everyone is familiar with - or has the time tobe familiar with - the report. But they do have legitimate concerns that should be taken into account Volker A. Greimann:I do not see pointing out potential consequenses as misleading David Cake:We should not be finding reasons to downgrade public comments. Sara Bockey:I don't think it's a fair assumption that if someone signs a petition they are not informed and somehow their voice is of less value. James Gannon:+1 Sara, we solicit Public Comment, lets not fail here when we recive a public response David Cake:And comments not appreciating the level of balance is not a reason to ignore them. If there are many comments indicating that the balance we ahve strick is inappropriate, that is a reason to reassess our balance, not dismiss comments. val sherman:old val sherman:sorry! Luc Seufer:SDP website points to the report https://www.savedomainprivacy.org/what-can-you-do-how-can-you-get-involved/ I don't see how it is misleading Kathy K:@Mary, in that case can we include them now?? Mary Wong:@Kathy, as mentioned, each Sub Team can add according to their methodology. Michele Neylon:+1 Stephanie Sara Bockey:+1 Stephanie Volker A. Greimann:in the end, we cannot judge on how the comments came about. For all we know everyone could have read the report, or enough of it. James Gannon:+1 Stephanie Volker A. Greimann:A comment is a comment, like it or not Michele Neylon:The bias argument is nutty Michele Neylon:Sorry, but we all have opinions and interests Luc Seufer:IMO a comment is by definition biased Kathy K:@Mary, it's not a subteam issue, its a fair reporting issue. These comments belong in the template. It's the choice of the subteam on how to weight and report these comments, but not the subteam view on how to include them in the first place Michele Neylon:I don't see how any of us could present a topic we have an opinion about in a neutral fashion Don Blumenthal:FWIW, a more balanced piece from Mark Jeftovic at OpenDNShttp://www.circleid.com/posts/20150703_confessions_of_an_ex_opponent… Mary Wong:@Kathy, how would you like staff to address this? val sherman:We are not talking about the comments being biased; the campaigns were biased, one-sided and imo, misleading. Volker A. Greimann:that was a good article Volker A. Greimann:I think it is part of the comments too Mary Wong:@Volker, yes - he submitted it as a public comment. Volker A. Greimann:it was submitted in some form Volker A. Greimann:thanks Mary James Gannon:Great points Phil. Holly Raiche:@ Phil +1 Kathy K:@Mary, tx for asking. As you added Turner Broadcasting, I would add another line to 1.3.3, question 1, after 86 to list the Save Domain Privact comment -- what they said and how they said it. Mary Wong:@Kathy, thanks for clarifying. My reason for asking is what @Lindsay is raising - depending on how the Sub Teams want to handle these comemnts, it could be a lot of work requiring additional volunteers. Volker A. Greimann:"other mass comments" is better... Kathy K:+1 Steve - I agree that #1 answers resolve this issue James Gannon:I think we still need to add them to the analysis process, just as a matter of correct process for analysis, we have the eyes of the world on this lets make sure that we do this right. Holly Raiche:@ Volker - instead of 'mass' what about a number of similar comments made Holly Raiche:Clarigy - put the number of comments made aginst each comment Volker A. Greimann:BTW, I am eworking on a alternate proposal to an accreditation and hope to have a draft by next week Volker A. Greimann:no guarantees though James Gannon:A number of us have had conflcts during this week so I think the worlk will kick off next week for SubTeam 4 Stephanie Perrin:+1 James G Kathy K:Tx Holly Volker A. Greimann:holly, I said better, not good ;-) Kathy K:I don't think we have reviewed this Steve Kathy K:As the subteams are so busy... James Gannon:I think the WG responses will be essentially coming out of the findings of the subteams in many ways Mary Wong:@James, we have 20 prelim recommendations and only some are being dealt with by the Sub Teams, who are largely focusing on the open questions. Holly Raiche:I'd be happy to attend if it is called Sara Bockey:(yes) = yes if needed Stephanie Perrin:We are being asked by ICANN travel to commit by Monday, so it would be good to have a decision. Kathy K:Is it needed? Philip Corwin:I also checked (yes) by which I meant open to attending if that was group consensus, and not strongly opposed Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Agreed Phil Holly Raiche:Yes, ICANN wants travel decisions for us by Monday Stephanie Perrin:My comment is that there was such a groundswell of public comment that we may owe it to our public to have a decent meeting at Dublin Kathy K:But this F2F meeting is not our public meeting, in Dublin, right? Chris Pelling:I also agree a meeting in dublin would be good James Gannon:Correct Kathy Chris Pelling:F2F certainly Michele Neylon:they're two different things Michele Neylon:F 2 F = group only Sara Bockey:I agree with James' point. I think it will likely be needed Kathy K:One occurs early and the other occurs in the formal meeting schedule Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - yes - separate from the public one Mary Wong:@Michele, yes, correct Carlton Samuels: I will have to be remote for a f2f. I can't be there unless funded Stephanie Perrin:Yes but the Friday meeting would be open to those who wish to show up, correct? Philip Corwin:F2F might be good preparation for what could be a contentious public meeting a few days later Holly Raiche:ICANN needs a gravel decision by next Monday Chris Pelling:Friday before I would not be able to make. As travelling to Dublin that day Graeme Bunton:Staff would LOVE us to decide ASAP James Gannon:=) Stephanie Perrin:I think we should decide today, otherwise those of us who cannot attend without funding, will not be there Chris Pelling:I would not be able to make it then Sara Bockey:Noon would be better James Gannon:I would offer the suggestion that we go ahead with planning this personally due to the due dates for travel confirmations Sara Bockey:unlesss you don't want me to shower... after long flight Stephanie Perrin:Monday Mary Rudi Vansnick:i have to leave for another call starting in about 2 minutes, I will be in Dublin on Friday 16th so no issue if attending the meeting is required Holly Raiche:Agree - the earlier the beter, but please, a decision ASAP Stephanie Perrin:Some of us are awfully cranky after an all night flight sitting bolt upright in economy Chris Pelling:Im off for another call - thanks guys Sara Bockey:I'm off to another call as well. thank you all. Holly Raiche:PLEASE - a decision on the F@F Don Blumenthal:Question. What's the value of F2F if we do only part of day? Stephanie Perrin:+1 Holly Mary Wong:@Don, the idea was 11 a.m. to 6 or 6.30 p.m. Kathy K:I still don't know what the F2F is for... what issues will still be open? Mary Wong:As several people said they're coming in overnight Graeme Bunton:That's my impression, Steve Stephanie Perrin:@Kathy all of them at the rate we are going.... Mary Wong:@Kathy, it may change but the Work Plan envisages certain topics for discussion Kathy K:Tx Steve! Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Thanks all. Philip Corwin:Bye all val sherman:Thanks Steve, thanks all! Carlton Samuels:Thanks all James Gannon:thanks all Graeme Bunton:thanks all Michele Neylon:bye

1 0