Based on the
discussions yesterday, i want to make the following
remarks for the road ahead:
I feel strongly that when drafting the report should
not deviate from the consensus positions. While we may
refer to minority positions, these should be clearly
marked as non-consensus views held by a minority of
the members of the WG.
I also feel no love for any attempts to sneak in best
practice suggestions for providers that are not based
on a consensus view.
While we may want to include language that refers to
the recommendations as creating a minimum standard
that may be built upon by indiviual providers, i.e.
clarify that providers are not limited by the
recommendations in case they want to regulate more
strongly, but we should not infer in any way how these
stronger policies could or should look like, unless we
do it by the way of a clearly marked minority
statement.
Finally, I urge the WG to at least consider
alternatives to an accreditation scheme, both because
I feel that accreditation is not the ideal solution
and would create more problems than it will solve and
because not doing so would risk exposing our work to
the criticism of not having considered all options.
Best,
Volker
Am 22.09.2015 um 19:22
schrieb Mary Wong:
Dear all,
Please find below the notes and “action items”
(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
1’s recommendations and/or the WG’s
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
“differentiate”, and check on WG usage of
“online financial transactions” (as
opposed to “commercial” vs.
“non-commercial”)
- 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
evidence”) 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
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
you’ll recall, Sub Team 4 was tasked
to review those public comments that
were placed by staff into Part 4 of
the WG’s 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
WG’s 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 WG’s 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
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for the
next WG call, scheduled for
Tuesday 22 September at 1400 UTC,
is as follows:
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Discuss proposed updated text
for Section 1.3.2 of WG report
based on WG discussions of Sub
Team 1’s recommendations (see
attached document and note
below)
- Discuss proposed updated text
for Section 1.3.3 of WG report
based on WG co-chairs’ suggested
text (see attached document – as
circulated to the WG on 18
September)
- Status update/report from Sub
Team 4 (co-conveners: Kathy
Kleiman & Paul McGrady;
document forthcoming)
- [if time permits] Review list
of issues spotted from Parts 1-3
of the WG Public Comment Review
Tool (see attached document)
- 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
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.