September 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
by Mary Wong Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler. > > > From: Victoria Sheckler > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM > To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section > 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report > > Doesn¹t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority > position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the > majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority > view. > > > From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM > To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section > 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report > > +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by > the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines > confidence in this PDP process. > > Kathy > > On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: >> I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs >> seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach >> consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be >> excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are >> contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of >> comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil¹s words, >> surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now >> is a respectful burial. >> >> >> >> Holly >> >> >> >> On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem >>> out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on >>> circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional >>> services. >>> >>> >>> >>> Further, as regards this paragraph >>> >>> The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the >>> implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the >>> development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a >>> particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial >>> transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, >>> evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the >>> use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online >>> financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect >>> could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure >>> framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is >>> warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an >>> appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) >>> >>> >>> >>> -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of ³online financial >>> transactions for commercial purposes² or on placing any restrictions on >>> them, then how could developing an ³Illustrative framework mechanism² >>> possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no >>> underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a >>> dead horse back to life. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>> >>> Virtualaw LLC >>> >>> 1155 F Street, NW >>> >>> Suite 1050 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20004 >>> >>> 202-559-8597/Direct >>> >>> 202-559-8750/Fax >>> >>> 202-255-6172/cell >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>> >>> >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>> >>> >>> >>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - >>> Blacknight >>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM >>> To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section >>> 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree strongly with James G¹s assessment. >>> >>> >>> >>> If we agree that there should be no ³special² restriction for commercial / >>> financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I >>> don¹t understand it. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> >>> http://www.blacknight.host/ >>> >>> http://blog.blacknight.com/ >>> >>> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage >>> >>> http://www.technology.ie >>> >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> >>> Social: http://mneylon.social >>> >>> Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>> >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon >>> Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 >>> To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> " >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section >>> 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be >>>> discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final >>>> two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some >>>> point in the future for commercial domains, I don¹t feel these represent >>>> the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against >>>> their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the >>>> public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included >>>> categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the >>>> face of that agreement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -James >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong >>>> Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 >>>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" >>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section >>>> 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear WG members, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in >>>> respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG¹s Initial Report, i.e. the availability >>>> and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial >>>> transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team >>>> 2 and the WG¹s deliberations on this point following review of the various >>>> public comments received. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language >>>> on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that >>>> you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, >>>> this will be included in the WG¹s Final Report on this topic. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >

10 12

Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
by Mary Wong Sept. 21, 2015

Sept. 21, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG¹s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG¹s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG¹s Final Report on this topic. 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

9 10

Comcast fined $33 million for publishing unlisted numbers
by Sara Bockey Sept. 21, 2015

Sept. 21, 2015

All, In case you have not seen this article yet. http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/18/comcast-privacy-fine/

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 15 September 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 15 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC at:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-15sep15-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: Todd Williams IPC Sara Bockey RrSG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick Individual Steve Metalitz – IPC James Bladel RrSG David Hughes - IPC James Gannon NCUC Alex Deacon - IPC Luc Seufer RrSG David Cake- NCSG Carlton Samuels - At–Large Graeme Bunton RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Val Sherman IPC Vicky Schlecker – IPC Terri Stumme BC Holly Raiche ALAC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG Susan Kawaguchi – BC Iranga Kahangama - Apologies : Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Don Blumenthal – RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG Susan Prosser RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG Stephanie Perrin NCSG Phil Corwin – BC Sarah Wyld – RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Terri Agnew 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 15 September 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Graeme Bunton:Grabbing a Tea, brb Graeme Bunton:Tea'd. James Bladel:Monster Rehab? My new favorite tea. James Bladel:It wasn't "furious" it was only "brisk" and "purposeful." Holly Raiche:What is Monster Rehab??? Graeme Bunton:I prefer boring, generic orange pekoe/english breakfast black tea James Bladel:@Holly: Iced tea energy drink. Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - me too. Not sure about 'energy' drinks Frank Michlick:put yourhands up in the air Frank Michlick:I like Rojbois tea Frank Michlick:flavoured Terri Agnew:Vicky Sheckler has joined Mary Wong:Apologies, we can't show Word doc comments in PDF in AC :( So, yes, Todd, if you can point them out as you go along, that would be helpful. Mary Wong:But the comment "balloons" will show if you open the Word doc that was sent yesteday. David Cake:I'm an Early Grey tea guy mostly. I have a cup right now. Holly Raiche:I love the concept of "Early" tea Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:James Gannon and Susan Kawaguchi have joined James Gannon:Apologies for my tardyness Mary Wong:That was a comment made as part of this individual's response to the WG's online template question for this recommendation. I don't believe any further details or explanation was provided. Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the call James Bladel:So "frivolous" or "harassing." Got it. :) Sara Bockey:+1 @Holly Mary Wong:Some common law jurisdictions will use the phrase "frivolous or vexatious" rather than "harassing" (which may be more of a US-centric word). David Cake:I'm ok with the frivolous and vexatious language. Familiar in common law jurisdictions as Mary says. Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - My guess is that we'll have to put verifiable on issues to get back to steve metalitz:@Holly, agree, and as Todd noted, if other criteria need to be added to the template to fulfill "verifiable evidence" standard, it would be timely to bring them forward. Holly Raiche:@ Steve - it's on our list to do - and come back with some suggestions James Gannon:Happy with that Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined Carlton Samuels:Howdy all James Bladel:jees Carlton Samuels:My apologies. Multitasking again Holly Raiche:Hi Carlton Frank Michlick:too loud James Bladel:step back from mic, pls. Carlton Samuels:Hey Holly, I hope you shed a tear. Carlton Samuels::-) Holly Raiche:That was my question James Bladel:will defer to James G., the booming voice of God. val s.::) James Gannon:Sorry for booming voices, on a bad mic today James Bladel:How could you reach that conclusion without retaining the data from the first incident? Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ metalitz. We often see several indicators that the same actor/s are behind multiple sites engaged in similar styles of infrining activity steve metalitz:@James G, not a leap to try to ensure the information obtained is useful for the purpose for which obtained. As in my scenario, sometimes this involves retention . James Gannon:That would have to be addressed in a different framework as this is only for IP infringement reuqests James Bladel:at this point, they are alleged to be a "bad actor". But still a private dispute between two parties. steve metalitz:+1 to James G. re susan's example. This Annex is just for IPR claims. We anticipate that there would be different templates/ground rules for different kinds of complaints. Luc Seufer:@Steve I have thought about it, but I fail to see other templates/ground requiring a specific template. Carlton Samuels:IAt what point does the allegation cease to be a private dispute between parties and a trespass on the domain name system? Luc Seufer:I trust any other type of dispute would follow due process James Bladel:In the interests of moving this call forward, I'll drop from the queue. steve metalitz:@ Luc -- security/malware etc.? Susan kawaguchi:most of the malicious use also includes the use of our intellectual property so I am not seeing a distinction Luc Seufer:they wouldn't contact the PP provider I suppose, they would go to the hosting or IS provider Susan kawaguchi:we use registrant information all the time to connect domain names for security issues Mary Wong:Graeme? Graeme Bunton:Here? Graeme Bunton:weird! Graeme Bunton:will re join room Frank Michlick:can't hear you James Gannon:I out him to sleep Graeme Bunton:Yes, thanks Steve Luc Seufer:morse code now? Mary Wong:FYI we're now on Section III - Service Provider Action on Request James Gannon:PGP Encrypted Email wouldnt be a heavy ask in my opinon James Bladel:@James - it is a huge ask. Luc Seufer:@JamesG I still see law firms trying to send us 100meg UDRP complaint via email Alex Deacon:maybe one day we will have email key management via DNS a la DANE/DNSSEC :) Luc Seufer:and complaining it was rejected by our email system James Gannon:For clarity our request was only for the tranmission of the final contact details. Vicky Sheckler:re: III.B., once a valid request has been made that meets the requirements, S.P. should be obligated to provide the information. Vicky Sheckler:or say no and why, as Steve M is saying James Bladel:I'm on board with Steve's comment, especially if can swap (i) and (ii). Luc Seufer:Agreed too Alex Deacon:Agree. the "encouraged but not required to" guts this whole annex. James Bladel:@JamesG - but we do have flexibility, under (ii). Mary Wong:@James B, what do you mean by swap (i) & (ii)? steve metalitz:@ James G so you think after all this the service provider shoudl not have to respond yes or no to disclosure request? Alex Deacon:I don't believe we have ever considered an automatic disclosure process. Vicky Sheckler:think III.B. (i) and (ii) should stay in order they are in now James Gannon:@Steve: Persoanlly I can live with it, looking at the public comments looking for the removal of Annex E in its entirety I would have concerns. James Bladel:they can be merged Mary Wong:Per Steve M, the WG had previously decided not to mandate that a provider must allow the surrender option, since current practices is that some do offer it and some do not. James Bladel:surrender = deletion. Anything else would be an operational burden for providers & registrars. James Gannon:+1 James Holly Raiche:2 James B - agree with interpretation Mary Wong:Yes - the intent was not to mean transfer. Luc Seufer:so why not replace surrender by deletion? Alex Deacon:I'd like to see the merged text before I can commenet/agree. James Gannon:+1 Alex Mary Wong:@Luc, I think the original idea was to reflect the customer's choice to give up the service Holly Raiche:@ luc - fine with suggestion Luc Seufer:but the text says the domain name, not the service (i.e. removing the proxy) James Gannon:Great work, definintley food for tought on a critical aspect James Gannon:And I appreacite the groups from both sides of the field working together Mary Wong:@Luc, probably we can rephrase to the effect of "customer electing to give up its domain name registration, resulting in a deletion" or something like that. Luc Seufer:customer electing to have their domain name deleted. Luc Seufer:would be clearer IMO Mary Wong:OK thanks - we'll take that back to the sub team! Luc Seufer:thank you Mary James Gannon:Thanks all James Bladel:Thanks folks. val s.:thanks all Luc Seufer:thanks, bye all

1 0

Compilation of P/P provider responses
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows: 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful? 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you¹d like to add to a response you¹d provided previously, please send it along and I¹ll make sure it gets added to this document. Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

9 11

Apologies - missing AC Chat transcript 1 September 2015
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear all, It has been pointed out that the transcript of the Adobe Connect room chat pod from the PPSAI WG call on the 1st September 2015 is missing. When I looked for it, I realized to my embarrassment that I had omitted to save it after the call. Unfortunately, whereas the AC room keeps track of attendance and documents posted, once the chat content is replaced by the next week's call content, it is irretrievable. I am deeply sorry about this, it will not happen again, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Please all rest assured that this is a one-off incident. The mp3 and transcription of the call on the 1st September are of course unaffected by this. Apologies once again, Kind regards Nathalie

1 0

Agenda and documents for the WG call
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 15 September is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Overview of possible revisions to Annex E- Illustrative Disclosure Framework (Sub Team 3) 3. WG discussion of possible revisions to Annex E 4. Call for identification of issues arising from Part 3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool 5. Next steps The document from Sub Team 3 to be discussed under Items 2 & 3 is attached it is basically that which was previously circulated last week, but without a few additional comments which Sub Team members have since asked to be removed. 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 1

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 8 September 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 8 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-08sep15-en.mp3 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 Roger Carney - 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 Justin Macy – BC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Vicky Schlecker – IPC Rudi Vansnick - NPOC Apologies : Terri Stumme BC Holly Raiche ALAC Graeme Bunton RrSG Don Blumenthal – RySG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Gisella Gruer ** 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 8 September 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference on Tuesday 8 September 2015 James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hi all Michele Neylon:Miss? Mary Wong:Oops, sorry for that Michele Michele Neylon:Did she just speak to me and then change my gender?? James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes =) Michele Neylon:I think she actually did Michele Neylon:wow Philip Corwin:Now you can star in your own reality TV show, Michele ;-) Philip Corwin:Good day to all Michele Neylon:Phil - yesh Mary Wong:Document is unsync'd steve metalitz:@Staff could you put the text up on screen pls? Mary Wong:Isn't it showing? It is for me - let me know! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I see it Alex Deacon:works for me James Bladel:Might be a cxn issue for Steve? Val S.:I see it too Frank Michlick:I think it froze for Steve Kathy:Steve: I see many more people in the chatroom P:I can see the content on the screen! Luc Seufer:does this mean we can type anything here and pretend Steve agrees to it and he won't be able to counter it? Gisella Gruber:Marika has joined the call as well Val S.:Electronic requests P:Gisella, I'm just listed as "P". I can't figure out how to change that. I tried logging out and in again. Sorry!! P:PS: Paul McGrady Gisella Gruber:Thank you P! Have noted your attendance James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Paul in the top right corner of the chat window click the menu click change my info then change your name =) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Sorry Paul the attendees window Kathy:Could I ask Alex for an answer to my question?? Kathy:@Steve: that would work Gisella Gruber:David Hughes has joined the audio bridge Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late, an unexpected meeting Paul McGrady:Thanks James! Gisella Gruber:Osvaldo has joined the adobe connect room James Bladel:I'm in general agreement, just think we need to clean up the language. Alex Deacon:@James I think when we see the updates in context things will be clearer. James Bladel:Ok. Just concerned that "all electronic communications" opens the floodgates for junk communication. I do not want legitimate complaints to get lost in the noise. Alex Deacon:language clarificaiton is always a good thing however.... Val S.:James -- don't we allready provide that some comm can be filtered by the provider? Mary Wong:@Val, yes - that's one of the options in Rec 16, about what must be forwarded. Val S.:Right. Does that address your concern James? The recommendation applies to that comm not filtered under Rec 16. Stephanie Perrin:Need to make sure that PP provider has discretion James Bladel:Perhaps. I'll have to go back and take al look at Rec 16 Mary Wong:@James I'll paste the Rec 16 language into the right hand side Notes pod. James Bladel:Cool, thanks. Michele Neylon:that makes sense James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Agreed Stephanie Perrin:sorry I have to sign off now, running to other appt. Val S.:That is answered by question 1, Vicky James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Thats what the MLATs exist for Gisella Gruber:Please state your names for transcript purposes Rudi Vansnick:@Michele : isn't there a legal term/period definition for that ? James Bladel:defer to Mary, of course. :) Michele Neylon:Rudi - for what? Rudi Vansnick:the time between the breach and the real stop of delivery service James Bladel:It is september. Last september? :) Mary Wong:@James G, that's what I was referring to; the sampling was done last September. Kathy:@Mary: if you could repost, that would be great. James Bladel:Just noting that we are more likely to vigorously defend our customer info from private parties, vs. LEA. Thanks. Mary Wong:I will resend the document to the mailing list. Luc Seufer:@James, it depends on the LEA. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Thanks Mary James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Just about David Kathy:@James: Agree. quick note that LEA may be a special case. What I am thinking of more is private parties... although voluntary LEA publication is an issue too. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Agreed Kathy Michele Neylon:+1 Michele Neylon:malware etc., => hosting provider James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:OPen mic with keyboard Mary Wong:Please mute if not speaking, thanks Paul McGrady:hard to hear over the typing Luc Seufer:that's an old typewriter Michele Neylon:now forcing hosting providers to be more responsive is another problem entirely James Bladel:Like a newsroom from an old movie. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Sounded like a mechinical keyboard =) Vicky Sheckler:it is inappropriate to suggest in this world that only one service provider should address a specific problem. Vicky Sheckler:we need a multi-pronged approach Michele Neylon:Vicky - I think you're agreeing with me? Michele Neylon:or maybe not Mary Wong:@Steve, @Todd, let me know if/when you want me to switch to the revised Framework language. James Bladel:lost audio? James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Working for me Alex Deacon:audio is good for me James Bladel:ok, just me the.n Chris Pelling:eyah problem with content > hosting company . I agree with Michele Kathy:Please read - lots of great stuff in these subteam 3 materials Paul McGrady:Great call Steve! Thanks! Vicky Sheckler:Michele - i agree hosting providers have a role to play , but so do registrars and p/p services, etc. Kathy:Tx Steve! Luc Seufer:thanks Philip Corwin:Bye all

1 0

Agenda for WG call on Tuesday 8 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 7, 2015

Sept. 7, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday 8 September 2015 is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Summary of updated report from Sub Team 1 (please see documents circulated on 5 September) 3. Update and report from Sub Team 3, followed by WG discussion (please see documents circulated on 5 September) 4. Next steps, including further call for issues arising from Part 3 of the WG¹s Public Comment Review Tool (first circulated on 20 August) For your convenience, all the updated documents from Sub Teams 1 and 3 have also been posted to their respective wiki pages: https://community.icann.org/x/zoZCAw and https://community.icann.org/x/04ZCAw. 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

Updated documents from Sub Team 3 - for discussion on Tuesday
by Mary Wong Sept. 5, 2015

Sept. 5, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attach two updated documents from Sub Team 3, which is due to report back to the WG this coming Tuesday. Sub Team 3 was formed to review the public comments received on Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright owners). The first document is a revised version of the summary that was presented to the WG a few weeks ago by the Sub Team the most significant changes are on page 1, under the Overview when describing the comments in and associated with the Save Domain Privacy petition, and on pages 5-7, where a number of additional specific comments were added to those that indicated opposition to Annex E (in particular, on whether a court order would be necessary). The second document is a revised version of the illustrative framework itself, which shows what an updated framework that incorporated many of the comments received might look like, if adopted by the WG. Please note that these documents are not necessarily the consensus views of the Sub Team, and are being provided now in order to facilitate the WG¹s expected discussion on Tuesday. 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