September 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

US Defends Safe Harbour
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Ah well...... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/us-desperately-defends-safe-harb… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Correction
by Don M. Blumenthal Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread.

6 6

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 29 September 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 29 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-29sep15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#s<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep>ep<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Stephanie Perrin NCSG Todd Williams - IPC Sara Bockey - RrSG Frank Michlick - Individual Steve Metalitz – IPC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG David Hughes - IPC James Gannon - NCUC Paul McGrady - IPC Susan Prosser- RrSG Alex Deacon - IPC Luc Seufer - RrSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Christian Dawson - ISPCP Chris Pelling - RrSG Val Sherman - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG Graeme Bunton - RrSG Terri Stumme - BC Volker Greimann - RrSG Stephen Truick - Carlton Samuels - At–Large Griffin Barnett - IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Holly Raiche ALAC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Don Blumenthal-RySG Roger Carney-RrSG Apologies : Phil Corwin – BC James Bladel - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Gisella Gruber ** 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, Gisella ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 29 September 2015 Gisella Gruber:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call on Tuesday 29 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Chris Pelling:afternoon all Chris Pelling:Yes graeme Chris Pelling:Gisella I must say that is a very nice accent Chris Pelling:aha my coffee Val S:hello all Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Holly Raiche:So Graeme - another cup of tea- so very British/Oz Frank Michlick:I don't drink coffee. Tea FTW Graeme Bunton:I only drink coffee at ICANN meetings Graeme Bunton:mostly because the tea at ICANN meetings is terrible Holly Raiche:And the coffee is not that crash hot there - but maybe in Dublin... Graeme Bunton:you can never use a caraffe for hot water after it's been used for coffee Carlton Samuels:Morning all Holly Raiche:Have you thought that is what is served as coffee! Holly Raiche:Evening Carlton Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing a lot of ...ok gone Paul McGrady:I'm not sure my name was called, but I am here (at least for the first 30 minutes or so). Kathy K:echoes Holly Raiche:Graeme - you're souding very faint - closer to the mic please Michele Neylon:sorry - was in another meeting Michele Neylon:here now Carlton Samuels:Better Gisella Gruber:Luc Seufer and Stephanie Perrin have joined the call Gisella Gruber:Marika Konings is on the call Gisella Gruber:Susan Prosser has joined the call Gisella Gruber:Griffin Barnett has joined the call Sara Bockey:It doesn't reflect his request for indemnification of registrars Stephanie Perrin:Graeme you are sounding very faint Mary Wong:@Sara, see notes under A(6)? Mary Wong:Clarification - the redline you see is the SAME document as was discussed on 14 Sept (the only new textual changes are the ones noted under Section III in the right hand side notes pod) Sara Bockey:thank you for clarifying Mary Mary Wong:Staff did not "accept" the changes circulated on 14 Sept as much of these remain open for discussion. Darcy Southwell:+1 for James Gannon Graeme Bunton:weird Sara Bockey:+1 for James Gannon Graeme Bunton:switching headsets Holly Raiche:Graeme - we can't hear you Graeme Bunton:steve, if you will Graeme Bunton:or todd... Chris Pelling:totaqlly disagree Graeme Bunton:can't hear for a moment, Steve Stephanie Perrin:Totally disagree Chris Pelling:its the requestor that is creating the paperwork Sara Bockey:+1 Chris Pelling Val S:But the reason for that paperwork is that there is a contract bw the provider and their customer Holly Raiche:Agree with Stephanie and Chris James Gannon:Its the requestor that is asking for a service to be performed for them Frank Michlick:+1 Sara Bockey:+1 James Gannon Carlton Samuels:I disagree. It is the requester that pays Sara Bockey:+1 Kathy K Chris Pelling:Sorry Val, I dont get you ? Carlton Samuels:@Kathy +1 Chris Pelling:essentially ANY costs outside of the contract is the requestor requesting it Kathy K:Perhaps there is a way to define "nominal cost" rather than deleting it. Chris Pelling:not the fault of the person who is using the service Holly Raiche:Up to the P/P provider - maybe Grame can comment? Chris Pelling:surely it is up to the provider to determin that Val S:The requestor is seeking information that would be available but for the service the provider offers to its customers Carlton Samuels:Who ecides what is nominal? The P/P provider Sara Bockey:I agree with Holly...it should be up the the Provider James Gannon:I;'ll pass Todd Williams:+1 Val Kathy K:If it is defined as "nominal" and "cost recovery" there are limits on what can be charged. Graeme Bunton:Sorry, still trying to get a headset to play nice Kathy K:It's not a profit center Stephanie Perrin:lost you Stephanie Perrin:lost you Holly Raiche:I think Cost recovery is a good term - also agree with Michele steve metalitz:@Michele you can levy a fee on clients but not on non clients. Luc Seufer:by asking the providers to act, you are asking to be provided with a service Sara Bockey:+1 Michele and Luc Carlton Samuels:@Michele +1. Makes sense that the provider has the right/ability to levy fees Frank Michlick:@Steve: If non-clients ask me to work for them they become a client and get invoiced. Chris Pelling:+1 to the speaker :) Luc Seufer:just like parties asking for bulk whois access Luc Seufer:under the RAA Frank Michlick:If you would charge the domain owner (without their doing) then it would be easy to drive up charges for the domainer owner by a maliciuous inquirer. James Gannon:Its split, under x number of hours its a flat fee over a number of hours its a per hour chrage Alex Deacon:ok - sorry Holly Raiche:Agree with Kathy Sara Bockey:+1 Kathy's suggestion Val S:+1 paul Holly Raiche:Not standardised - it will depend on each P/P and indeed, on each request Alex Deacon:Still no mic - apologies. The comment I wanted to make is that I agree service providers shold have the flexibility to run their biz as they feel fit.... Alex Deacon:...but is it appropriate for an ICANN agreement to mandate/suggest it? Michele Neylon:Alex - probably not James Gannon:Graeme back and open mic = Luc Seufer:Or we could agree to charge a fee equal to one hour of the time of the complainant representative. Holly Raiche:@ Alex - too hard for ICANN I would guess. It should be up to each P/P own systems - but also agree with Steve - maybe an appeal to ICANN? Graeme Bunton:Well, i can hear now, so that's something. Rudi Vansnick:if ICANN would mandate/suggest a fee for this services what about all other services ? Holly Raiche:@ Rudi - exactly. Heaven help us if ICANN gets into that business! Kathy K:It's a valid concern Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree Kathy K:Can Mary pleasee revise the comment to this section (in the doc) to reflect today's discussion? James Gannon:Irish fee 20.95 per hour of search and retieval. Holly Raiche:@ James G - fine - but will tha work globally/for all size P/P providers? James Gannon:No was just a refernce point from Micheles point Mary Wong:No textual changes, Steve Holly Raiche:@ James - thanks - but still doesn't help globally Mary Wong:The document is unsync'ed so you can each scroll individually Luc Seufer:can’t we merge B.III and D and let providers the leeway? Mary Wong:@Luc, which sections are you referring to? Luc Seufer:Section I Paul McGrady:Apologies all, but I have to drop off due to a client event. Have a great day! Mary Wong:@Luc, I see, thanks Chris Pelling:sorry I am not James, data mining is not what this is for Graeme Bunton:I *think* I'm back, for real this time. Kathy K:+1 Michele Sara Bockey:+1 Michele James Gannon:+1 Michele Luc Seufer:I think iii is enough. The proportionality principle is already baked in the "applicable laws" Luc Seufer:(for EU ones at least) James Gannon:Yes Kathy K:Unlimited retention in US :-( Carlton Samuels:The data retention rules vary from EU to US Carlton Samuels:Aaaah thks Kathy :-) James Gannon:We dont want to get back into forcing providers to be in conflict with their national laws Luc Seufer:and the laws should be the one of the provider and the customer Luc Seufer:i.e. the owner and the processor of the data steve metalitz:@Stephanie, customers and providers are not "bound to confidentiality". All providers have TOS providing for disclosure without consent of customer. Stephanie Perrin:Exactly. Otherwise, if I am a commercial entity whose data has been released and then abused by the requestor, my only recourse is likely to be suing the provider. Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - a good approach - to consider that there is a contract between the customer and the requestor Stephanie Perrin:@Holly exactly, and any fees would be part of that contractual relationship. Need not be onerous Don Blumenthal:OTOH, no US federal retention requiremeent Kathy K:Can the comments of this section by Mary now include the diversity of this discussion - and the deletion request? Mary Wong:@Kathy I've been taking notes Kathy K:Tx Mary steve metalitz:@ Kathy, no the opposite is the case: shall is what was in Annex E, the longer language is new sugestion. James Gannon:yup Kathy K:@Steve: I think "encouraged but not required to" Kathy K:is the better option Mary Wong:Per @Steve, the original language was "shall" but without a specific number of calendar days - that was what was put out for public comment and the 3 calendar days and "encouraged" language was put in after the comments came in Alex Deacon: is the telephone a "secure communication channel"? Holly Raiche:I think Grame's question is a good one - is the P/P provivder doing nothing okay? James Gannon:Thats the idea. James Gannon:Alex: Depends of the country. Some consider it securre some dont. Alex Deacon:one could argue that a phone call is more secure than naked email. Holly Raiche:@ Alex - a cswitched cis=rcuit is most derintely more security than TCP/IP. However, if it is a VoIP call, it's over TCP/IP protocol Holly Raiche:sorry for misspelling James Gannon:+1 Holly, depends on the tech used in the country in question Holly Raiche:@ James - absolutely agree Val S:How about examples? steve metalitz:@Michele, not clear if you are for or against nicluding this phrase "using secure communications channel"? Michele Neylon:For Val S:so just communication channel? Holly Raiche:I like carrier pigeon Carlton Samuels:@Michele: +1. Keep it high level. It is policy advice, not implementation instructions Stephanie Perrin:"generally agreed security principles" seems to apply here, as it doesin most data protection law.... James Gannon:Carrier pidgeon using a one time pad I'll take Mary Wong:All, do bear in mind that even with high level policy recommendations, they will need to be "translated" into implementable, clear advice for accreditation. Michele Neylon:I'm not speaking on behalf of the providers :) Michele Neylon:I'm speaking on behalf of me / one of my companies Mary Wong:That will be the job of the Implementation Review Team that will be formed after the recommendations are formally approved/adopted by the GNSO Council and then the Board. James Gannon:Email is inherently insecure steve metalitz:@Kathy and Paul if still there, how about subteam 4 -- status? Holly Raiche:Anything TCP/IP based is 'best endeavours' Don Blumenthal:Carrier pigeons are extinct. Chris Pelling:@Don, they all got eaten ;) Holly Raiche:@ Chris - which is why maybe they weren't 'secure' communications Chris Pelling:@Holly, how could you prove otherwise with no evidence ? Chris Pelling::) Michele Neylon:Chris - you wouldn't eat the pigeopns in Milan Michele Neylon:well you could, but you'd only do it once Don Blumenthal:Yep. Or taken to inercept messages steve metalitz:@Kathy can you point me to where in NCSG comments the "reasonable basis" formulation is opposed? steve metalitz:@ Jeames G Both formulations are "old language" steve metalitz:James Stephanie Perrin:We need further discussion on these changes in my view, not clear yet where we are landing. Kathy K:@Steve: the full language and all options were put out for public comment, James Gannon:thanks all Val S:thanks all Kathy K:Tx All! Luc Seufer:thanks Gisella Gruber:Thank you all!

1 0

Notes and Updates from WG call today - please send comments to this mailing list
by Mary Wong Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find below a brief report from the co-conveners of Sub Team 4 (since we did not get to that agenda item today) as well as a list of notes, action items and specific discussion points that were either made on the WG call earlier today or that we did not manage to get to. It will be greatly appreciated if you can send your thoughts and comments on any of the points below to this mailing list as soon as you can. Staff will endeavor to update and circulate a new version of Annex E by the end of this week. Thank you! (A) Report from Sub Team 4: The Subteam met on Friday as planned and discussed next steps. 2. We received the last of the reviewed comment summaries yesterday and are incorporating them into the list. We will recirculate the updated template list shortly. 3. Once the final list is circulated, there will be a final chance for the WG to indicate that particular comments have already been addressed by other Subteams. 4. We have a good second draft of our summary complete and we continue our work on refining it. We expect to have our summary for the WG meeting next Tuesday. (B) Notes, Action Items and Additional Discussion Points on Annex E: Proposed Text Changes: * Section I.B(iii) - On the question of whether providers can charge a nominal cost-recovery fee: the word ³standardized² will be deleted. * Section II.A(6)(b)(ii): On the reasons for requesters to use and retain information: either rephrase (i) and (ii) to be less ³legalistic² and self-referencing (to clarify what the objectives are), or delete (ii) entirely * Section III.B On the topic of ³secure communication channels²: concern about too-narrow a definition of ³secure², so either a workable definition is developed (James Gannon to provide a first draft) or (preferably in the view of some WG members) this be rephrased as a best practice Additional Discussion Items: * Section III.C(v) and (vi) - Any overlap that would merit merging, or keep ³as is²? * Annex 1 Both options have been retained; are there further comments/suggestions regarding this? * GENERALLY Do the Annex E framework requirements demonstrate ³verifiable evidence² that can justify disclosure? * Section I.D and GENERALLY Do the Respect our Privacy and Save Domain Privacy comments require re-examining a provider¹s flexibility to publish details or terminate for breach of terms of service? (Staff Note: this seems currently consistent with the WG¹s approach on other Preliminary Recommendations about what a provider must include in its terms of service, and what it must publish about those terms e.g. Preliminary Recommendations #6, #7, #8, #9) * Section III.D and GENERALLY Does the overall discussion about many commenters¹ belief that a court order should be obtained require the WG to re-examine its recommendation that ³disclosure cannot be refused solely for lack of . A court order²? Further Staff Note: * Section III.C(iv) - On whether it should be optional or mandatory for providers to offer the ability for a customer to give up its domain name registration in lieu of disclosure, please note that in another Preliminary Recommendation (#8) the WG does not recommend this as a mandatory requirement; the wording of Preliminary Recommendation #8 contemplates that some providers will while others will not offer this option. 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 and documents for the WG call on Tuesday 29 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday 29 September is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Continued discussion of possible revisions to Annex E (staff-provided draft attached) 3. Report from Sub Team 4 (documents forthcoming from co-conveners) 4. [if time permits] Review issues noted from Parts 1-3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (attached as previously circulated, dated 15 September) 5. Next steps Please note that, for agenda item #2, the attached document has not been fully discussed or agreed on by Sub Team 3. The attachment is an attempt by staff to provide a placeholder (where an issue remains unresolved) or a suggested update (where an issue appears from the last WG and Sub Team discussions to have attained at least some measure of agreement), based on the last WG discussion over Sub Team 3¹s work. As such, on the WG call tomorrow Sub Team 3 members will facilitate and/or frame the WG¹s further discussion of the outstanding matters noted in the document. Please note also that the Public Safety Working Group, a working group within the GAC, has prepared comments on our Initial Report. The PSWG comments can be found here: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/PSWG%2BGAC%20comments %20proxy%20privacy%20accreditation%20issues%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificatio nDate=1442394018112&api=v2. 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

4 4

A comment from 46 organizations and 105 individuals
by Kathy Kleiman Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Hi All, On the matter we are discussing involving financial transaction and differentiation, a comment comes to mind that merits some additional attention from the WG. Like the DBP and ROP comments, this is part of the outpouring of individuals and organizations commenting in our proceeding from whome ICANN does not normally hear from (with one noted exception below). The detailed comment was signed by 105 individuals, incl Cory Doctorow, Bruce Schneider, Wendy Seltzer, Emily Lindin (The UnSlut Project), Kendra Albert (Berkman Center), Jonathan Zittrain, Nadia Kayyali (EFF) and many leaders in many women’s and electronic organizations plus 46 organizations, the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Council of Women’s Organizations, Women's Media Center, Women's Media Center Women Under Seize, ACCESS, Ada Initiative, and coalitions against domestic violence in Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, North Caroline, Virginia and Wyoming. The letter strongly opposes the commercial/noncommercial distinction and emphatically states that "[e]ven the most limited definition of a 'website handling online financial transactions for commercial purpose' will encompass a wide population that could be severely harmed by doxing" giving powerful examples. I include the link and full text below for your review... and appreciate all who commented in our proceeding. http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/msg11319.html Best, Kathy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers: We are an alliance of digital rights groups, anti-harassment initiatives, media advocacy groups, women’s rights organizations, and private individuals. We are writing to you about the Initial Report on the Privacy & Proxy Services published on May 5th, which proposes requiring “commercial website” owners to display their address under their WHOIS data. Broadly defined, this prevents millions of site owners from safeguarding their private information. We strongly oppose the Working Group’s proposal, which will physically endanger many domain owners and disproportionately impact those who come from marginalized communities. People perceived to be women, nonwhite, or LGBTQ are often targeted for harassment, and such harassment inflicts significant harm.The endemic nature of inequity online is a matter of deep concern for all of us, as we are working to make the Internet a safe and accessible place for all voices. The proposal in front of ICANN would radically undermine progress in that direction, in part by making it far easier to dox domain owners. "Doxing" is the malicious practice of obtaining someone's personal information (e.g. home address, phone number, etc) and making that information more readily and widely available. Doxing makes possible a wide range of crowdsourced harassment and intimidation, which includes everything from unwanted pizza deliveries to unrelenting barrages of rape- and death threats. Doxing also enables "swatting," or calling in false tips that send a fully armed SWAT team crashing through a targeted person's door. Public online directories give doxers, swatters, and stalkers alike easy access to their targets' personal information. Our concern about doxing is not hypothetical. Randi Harper, a technologist, anti-harassment activist, and founder of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, was swatted based on information obtained from the WHOIS record for her domain. The only reason law enforcement did not draw their weapons and break down Harper's door was that she had previously warned her local police department about swatting. Even the most limited definition of a "website handling online financial transactions for commercial purpose" will encompass a wide population that could be severely harmed by doxing, such as: * women indie game developers who sell products through their own online stores * freelance journalists and authors who market their work online * small business owners who run stores or businesses from their homes * activists who take donations to fund their work, especially those living under totalitarian regimes * people who share personal stories online to crowdfund medical procedures To make things worse, the proposed definition of what constitutes "commercial purpose" could be expanded to include other types of activity such as running ads or posting affiliate links. If implemented, the current proposal will chill speech—especially speech from people who lack access to lavish legal resources. It will be a generous gift both to harassers and to oppressive regimes. It will curb economic activity by adding untenable risk to using a website to promote one’s business or to collect donations, and may even add this risk to hosting ads. Women, people of color, and members of other marginalized communities, who are the most frequent targets of doxing, will be forced to take costly, speech-restrictive steps in order to protect themselves. The WHOIS system is, in the words of ICANN’s own Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services, “widely regarded as ‘broken,’”but the proposed change will make WHOIS even worse. The proposal leaves domain owners with three options: * accept the risk of having their home address available to all * pay for a P.O. box—although that option is not available in every region or country * falsify their address information Falsified information, however, puts domain owners at risk of having their domains terminated for breaching their registrars' terms of service. Because the remaining options are either "public" or "pay," domain owners who are targets or potential targets of harassment have a safety tax levied upon them. While some registrars currently charge a fee to withhold personal information from WHOIS, the current proposal will make an already-undue burden even more burdensome. Although the working group stakeholders' concerns about being able to verify consumer transactions and find information about businesses are valid, we did not find any evidence that Internet users are having difficulty getting information about businesses because of privacy and proxy services. Further, law enforcement agencies and copyright-holders are already able to access this information through existing legal processes. The unclear merits of this proposal cannot outweigh the inevitable harm that will follow from making millions of website owners’ personal information public. Even an ICANN working group recognized (in 2013) that in cases “where identification of speakers would cause a threat to their lives or those of their families,” individuals should be entitled to heightened privacy protection. We strongly recommend that the proposed policy not be adopted. We further recommend that ICANN revisit its own findings from 2013 and move toward making WHOIS privacy the default for everyone. We believe that ICANN should not be complicit in making doxing, stalking, & swatting any easier than they already are. While ICANN certainly did not set out to exacerbate online harassment, that will ultimately be the result of this policy. Signed, Individually: Kendra Albert, Berkman Center for Internet & Society* Katherine Cross, CUNY Graduate Center* Nadia Kayyali, Electronic Frontier Foundation Randi Harper, Online Abuse Prevention Initiative Sarah Jeong Whitney Erin Boesel, Berkman Center for Internet & Society and MIT Center for Civic Media* Aaron Johnson, Computer Scientist Alicia Liu, Software Engineer Alison Macrina, Library Freedom Project Amanda Palmer Amber Yust Andi McClure, Indie Game Developer Andrea Horbinski, Organization for Transformative Works Andrew Losowsky Anil Dash, ThinkUp* Anita Sarkeesian, Feminist Frequency Anna Kreider Annalee Flower Horne, Activist and Small Business Owner Arthur Chu Ashley Judd Azure Jane Lunatic, Anti-spam Volunteer at Dreamwidth* Brianna Wu, Giant Spacekat* Bruce Schneier, Berkman Center for Internet and Society* Camille M. François, Berkman Center for Internet and Society* Caroline Sinders, Researcher/activist Charles Nesson Chris Kluwe Christine Love Claudio Guarnieri, Centre for Internet and Human Rights* Coraline Ada Ehmke, contributor—covenant.org* Cory Doctorow, Happy Mutants, LLC* Cynthia Fraser, Safety Net Canada* Dan Gillmor Dana Mangum, Executive Director, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence Danielle Keats Citron, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law* David Goulet, The Tor Project David M. Perry David Mirza Ahmad, Subgraph* Emily Lindin, The UnSlut Project Erika Smith Erinn Clark, The Tor Project Ethan Zuckerman, Center for Civic Media, MIT* Faruk Ateş, Modernizr.js* Fiona Barnett, HASTAC and Duke University* Griffin Boyce Helen Jamieson Harmony Rodriguez, Writer and Anti-violence Activist Harper Reed, Modest, Inc* Heidi Tandy, FYeahCopyright* Holly Jacobs, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative* Izzy Galvez, GWhois.org* J. Nathan Matias, MIT Center for Civic Media* Jack Cushman, Berkman Center for Internet and Society* Jaclyn Friedman Jacob Hoffman-Andrews, Block Together* Jacob Kaplan-Moss, Salesforce.com* Jacqueline Wernimont Jessica Moreno Jonathan Zittrain Joseph Reagle Kanane Jones, Indie Game Developer Kate Krauss, The Tor Project Katherine J. Mack Laura Bates, Writer and Founder, EverydaySexism * Laura Poitras, Praxis Films * Leigh Honeywell Lili_Anaz, Laboratorio de Interconectividades Lisa Nakamura, Gwendolyn Calvert Baker Collegiate Professor, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor* Liz Henry Lynn Harris, Feminist Journalist and Essayist Marcia Hofmann, Attorney Mary Anne Franks, University of Miami School of Law* Maryam Namazie, One Law for All* Matt Haughey, MetaFilter* Mehves Evin, Milliyet newspaper, Turkey* Mel Chua Melissa Elliott Michael Curry Michelle McNeil Nico Sell, The Wickr Foundation Nima Fatemi, Technologist/activist Nóirín "Trouble" Plunkett, Simply Secure* Renee Davidson, Writer Rey Junco, Iowa State University/Berkman Center for Internet and Society* Richard M. Stallman, Free Software Foundation* Risa Goodman Robert Faris, Berkman Center for Internet and Society* Runa A. Sandvik, Security Researcher Sands Fish, Harvard University* Sara Williamson Sarah Agudo, Medium* Selena Deckelmann, Open Source Programmer Sheri Rubin, Design Direct Deliver* Soraya Chemaly, The Women’s Media Center Speech Project* Sue Gardner Tarleton Gillespie, Microsoft Research New England* Thorlaug Agustsdottir, Pirate Party, Reykjavik* Toiya Kristen Finley, Writer Tom Leckrone, The Tor Project Urs Gasser Valerie Aurora, Ada Initiative Vivian Brown Wendy Seltzer, Board Member, The Tor Project Willow Brugh, Berkman Center for Internet and Society* Zoe Quinn, Crash Override Network Organizations: ACCESS Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Ada Initiative Black Girl Dangerous Press bolwerK Breakthrough Chayn Crash Override Network Dangerous Speech Project Electronic Frontier Foundation End Domestic Abuse WI Feminist Frequency Fight for the Future Free Software Foundation Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence Internet Democracy Project, India Jewish Women International Laboratorio de Interconectividades National Alliance to End Sexual Violence National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Council of Women's Organizations National Domestic Violence Hotline National Network to End Domestic Violence National Resource Center on Domestic Violence Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Net Family News Inc. New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence Online Abuse Prevention Initiative Organization for Transformative Works Peng! Collective Renewable Freedom Foundation Sonic Stop Street Harassment Subgraph The Tor Project The UnSlut Project The Wickr Foundation Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance Women’s Media Center Women Under Siege Women’s Media Center Speech Project Women, Action and The Media Women’s Media Center Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault *Organizational affiliation listed for identification purposes only ____ * -- Nadia Kayyali Activist 415.436.9333 ext 104 Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109-7701

2 1

Last call for duplicates
by McGrady, Paul D. Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Hi All, As mentioned on our call on Tuesday, if anyone has any concerns about a comment on the SubTeam 4 chart being a duplicate of a comment that another SubTeam has already considered, please step forward now. We are hard at work on our summary, so now is the time. Thanks in advance! Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] 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

Follow up from WG call today
by Mary Wong Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the notes and ³action items² (including suggested deadlines) arising from the WG call of earlier today. (1) Proposed text for an updated Section 1.3.2 (based on work of Sub Team 1): - Please review and bring up any concerns about inaccuracies (i.e. In reflecting Sub Team 1¹s recommendations and/or the WG¹s conclusions) and suggested edits to the WG mailing list by Friday 25 September (2) Proposed text for an updated Section 1.3.3 (based on work of Sub Team 2): - Need to clarify that para 1 on pg 1 refers to the WG status (no consensus) at the time the Initial Report was published (i.e. background to the Final Report text) - Pg 2: Need to clarify language to more clearly state that the WG recognizes that some providers currently have restrictions, and the WG is not recommending that making the distinction be made an accreditation standard/requirement - Pg 2 para 1: Change "deny" to ³differentiate², and check on WG usage of ³online financial transactions² (as opposed to ³commercial² vs. ³non-commercial²) - Pg 2: Drop the last two paragraphs of the document due to lack of support - Please send any additional comments (besides the ones discussed today and resolved as summarized above) to the WG mailing list by Friday 25 September (3) Next steps for Sub Team 3: - Bring back recommendations or alternative proposals (especially on the question of what would be sufficient for "verifiable evidence²) to the WG for discussion on the call next week (4) Next steps for Sub Team 4: - Summary and updated report to be presented on the WG call next week (5) Next steps on Issue Spotting (Parts 1, 2, 3 of WG Public Comment Review Tool): - WG members to review current list and note on WG mailing which (if any) might result in the WG having to change one or more of its Preliminary Recommendations; such issues as well as operational concerns raised by GDD/Compliance (if relevant) to be discussed at a subsequent WG meeting I hope the above is useful. Please feel free to start and continue discussions on these topics on this mailing list! 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 17:35 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 22 September > Hello again everyone, > > Attached is a document from Sub Team 4 that shows most of the general comments > it has reviewed, its categorizations of these into one or more of seven > possible categories, and other notes from the Sub Team. As you¹ll recall, Sub > Team 4 was tasked to review those public comments that were placed by staff > into Part 4 of the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool, as being comments that, > while substantive, were not formulated to specifically answer or address a > particular WG recommendation (those that were having already been placed into > either Parts 1, 2 or 3 of the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool or referred to > one of the other three Sub Teams). > > For completeness of record, please note that the comments that were reviewed > and reflected in this document do not specifically include the statements sent > in through Respect Our Privacy, the petition from Save Domain Privacy, or the > additional 500+ pages of comments made by signatories of the Save Domain > Privacy petition. These have either been referred to (and reviewed by) Sub > Teams 2 or 3 (as applicable), or generally summarized them into a set of > categories for Sub Teams 2, 3 and 4 in mid-August (as noted in Section II of > Part 4 of the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool). > > 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 02:59 > To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 22 September > >> Dear WG members, >> >> The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 22 September >> at 1400 UTC, is as follows: >> 1. Roll call/updates to SOI >> 2. Discuss proposed updated text for Section 1.3.2 of WG report based on WG >> discussions of Sub Team 1¹s recommendations (see attached document and note >> below) >> 3. Discuss proposed updated text for Section 1.3.3 of WG report based on WG >> co-chairs¹ suggested text (see attached document as circulated to the WG on >> 18 September) >> 4. Status update/report from Sub Team 4 (co-conveners: Kathy Kleiman & Paul >> McGrady; document forthcoming) >> 5. [if time permits] Review list of issues spotted from Parts 1-3 of the WG >> Public Comment Review Tool (see attached document) >> 6. Next steps >> Important note on Agenda Item #2: The attached text has not yet been fully >> reviewed by Sub Team 1. It was prepared by staff based on the recommendations >> and reports from Sub Team 1 and the consequent WG discussions and >> conclusions. >> >> 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 5

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 22 September 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 22 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-22sep15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#s<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep>ep<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Stephanie Perrin NCSG Todd Williams - IPC Sara Bockey - RrSG Frank Michlick - Individual Steve Metalitz – IPC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG James Bladel - RrSG David Hughes - IPC Phil Corwin – BC James Gannon - NCUC Paul McGrady - IPC Susan Prosser- RrSG Alex Deacon - IPC Luc Seufer - RrSG David Cake- NCSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Christian Dawson - ISPCP Chris Pelling - RrSG Val Sherman - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG Graeme Bunton - RrSG Terri Stumme - BC Volker Greimann - RrSG Iranga Kahangama - Stephen Truick - Carlton Samuels - At–Large Griffin Barnett - IPC Jennifer Standiford - RrSG Susan Kawaguchi - BC Apologies : Holly Raiche ALAC Don Blumenthal – RySG Vicky Schlecker – IPC Rudi Vansnick - NPOC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Gisella Gruber ** 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, Gisella ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 22 September 2015 Gisella Gruber:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call on 22nd September 2015 Graeme Bunton:Audio via computer is not yet enabled? James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Morning/Afternoon/Evening All val s.:Hi all Chris Pelling:afternoon all Mary Wong:Agenda is on the right hand side pod Graeme Bunton:Welcome aboard, Deitrich James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Welcome! Susan Kawaguchi:congratulations Paul! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Congrats Paul Carlton Samuels:Howdy do everybody James Bladel:I have not had an opportunity to review. Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late Volker A. Greimann:in the interest of the timeline, lets start with the uncontroversial content then. Michele Neylon:sorry - was stuck in a meeting Michele Neylon:listening - going to dialin now Volker A. Greimann:trying to sneak stuff in for implementation will not help timelines val s.:Very hard to hear Graeme James Bladel:Sorry, can't really hear Graeme Kathy K:sorry Graeme, can't hear you James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:SUper quiet graeme Stephanie Perrin:cannot hear val s.:yes James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes Carlton Samuels:Yes I can Mary Wong:Obviously the full draft Final Report will also be circulated for review when it is ready (per Steve's comment earlier). We just thought it would be easier for people to see what we propose to include when discussions are fresh, and "chunked" rather than an entire new document. Stephanie Perrin:That is helpful, but we need to look at it all together. Mary Wong:@Stephanie, yes, that will certainly be the case. Stephanie Perrin:AS long as we are prepared to take comments then and not say we already discussed that chunk, fine. Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies, I only just read this now. Having looked at these comments as part of the group, I agree the last two paragraphs were not representative. I think we all have to remember is that we have to take the majority view when giving recommendations to ICANN. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1 Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy Carlton Samuels:that was the case. The verbiage could be used to clarify place in point Chris Pelling:Totally agree with James G Chris Pelling:Can we stop flogging a dead horse ? surely we have done this justice James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:+1 Chris Kathy K:I think Stephanie's concern focuses on third to last paragraph Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: I think she speaks on the penultimate para Kathy K:It's a very legitimate concern. Why would we encourage a practice among Providers that is flatly opposed by so many? Mary Wong:Perhaps we can restate the facts to make it clearer that some providers already have some restrictions, and the WG is not making any recommendation on whether a provider should or should not do so. Carlton Samuels:The suggestion by James G to delete the last 2 paras will take care of that issue Stephanie is raising. I understand she is saying explicity remove the suggestion that p/p providers can discriminate if they so choose. James Bladel:@Carlton. That's what I think she's driving at. Kiran Malancharuvil:if the point is that we are now suggesting accreditation standards which explicitly bar registrars from employing a best practice, that's not okay. Volker A. Greimann:we dispense this section regularly though Stephanie Perrin:not what I said. Volker A. Greimann:it is a fallback against bad actors, not a general principle James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I tink it was more if ICANN had the legal authority to make providers do that. Kathy K:"Under these circumstances, the Working Group does not believe that the accreditation standsards for P/P services should require service providers to *differentiate* the use of these services to registrants who wish to use them to enage in commercial activities or *noncommercial activities.* (asterix = change) val s.:Is there an issue with aknoledging that in this particular comment, as I think third to last paragraph does? Philip Corwin:If a specific PP provider does not permit websites that it deems commercial or engaged in financial transactions to ytilize its services, then the registrant would either not have a website under protection, or would have moved on to another provider that does. So not sure this is relevant since no such provider would ever be asked to reveal/opblish. Mary Wong:@Kathy, I've noted the first change. For the second, we may need to go back and see what the WG said about using the phrase "online financial transactions" rather than continue to use "commercial" vs "non commercial". Philip Corwin:"utilize"/"publish" (typo corrections ;-) Kathy K:+1 Stephanie - we would like to see this document written more neutrally Kathy K:@Mary - tx James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Michele has his hand up Steve Gisella Gruber:Carlton - please note your line is muted due to background noise Luc Seufer:@Carlton - please note that 9:42 is a tad early to party Mary Wong:@Steve, all - some of these comments have in fact been referred to other Sub Teams. Mary Wong:The issue of retention and looking at ccTLD examples, for instance, were among these. This was noted in the staff version of the template - apologies that it is not showing in this version. James Bladel:Just a note that the Board will be expected to follow the recomnendatoins of the GNSO. Thx. Kathy K:There were also some comments that thanked us for opportunity to comment! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Agreed James, Board does ont create policy the gNSO does. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Or at least thats how its supposed to work =) James Bladel:Mary - could you capture those action itmes to the list? Mary Wong:Absolutely! James Bladel:Awesome. Thanks! :) Carlton Samuels:Thanks all. Thanks Steve for even-handed chairing! Gisella Gruber:Thank you all - enjoy the rest of your day Kathy K:Tx Steve!

1 0

Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 22 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 22 September at 1400 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss proposed updated text for Section 1.3.2 of WG report based on WG discussions of Sub Team 1¹s recommendations (see attached document and note below) 3. Discuss proposed updated text for Section 1.3.3 of WG report based on WG co-chairs¹ suggested text (see attached document as circulated to the WG on 18 September) 4. Status update/report from Sub Team 4 (co-conveners: Kathy Kleiman & Paul McGrady; document forthcoming) 5. [if time permits] Review list of issues spotted from Parts 1-3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (see attached document) 6. Next steps Important note on Agenda Item #2: The attached text has not yet been fully reviewed by Sub Team 1. It was prepared by staff based on the recommendations and reports from Sub Team 1 and the consequent WG discussions and conclusions. 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

2 2