Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.
Tim
On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.
Tim
On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?
J.
On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
Could you clarify one point:
³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
Steve
From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.
Thanks, Libby
www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
Best regards,
Marika
From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----
Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.
Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:
IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.
For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.
Thanks!
Steve Metalitz, vice chair
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
Dear All,
Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
Proposed Agenda PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014
1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg