Thanks for this helpful framework Kathy. I agree with the process that you’ve outlined below, and would add a +1 to your vote to add these as sub-topics to the 3 sub-teams already identified, rather than to create new sub-teams. And if we’re discussing which of the three buckets to put them in, I’ll also add a +1 to discussing due process in sub-team 3 (Annex E) – seems like the logical bucket to me. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:25 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Some additional subtopics arising from the thousands of comments we received Hi All, I have now reviewed a number of the comments, as I hope you have. As discussed in an earlier email, I think there are other topics we should be looking at in the sub-teams based on the outpouring of responses from companies, organizations, and especially thousands of individuals. My thought is not to create additional sub-teams, but to assign additional topics to sub-teams (so the sub-teams remain diverse and well-staffed). Here are three additional topics that arise from a review of the comments - and I would be interested in hearing what others have found as well. A) Due process: thousands of commenters call for due process, and the call is not necessarily or exclusively for court orders. Due process is considered to be a fundamental balance and fairness and ability of all parties involved to participate equally in a process impacting them. What do the commenters say about due process and how might these recommendations be incorporated into all or various aspects of the draft recommendations and report? B) Use of proxy/privacy registration and abuse of registrants who do not have them. We have received thousands of pieces of data on abuses of domain name data - some of which we knew and and some that we did not. What are the types of problems that registrants -- legitimate, good faith registrants -- have shared with us in these comments and how can their experiences be better reflected in our work? C) Speech/expression/anonymity/chilling effects. These are mentioned in a number of the longer, substantive comments coming in from groups both inside ICANN and outside. What are the issues being raised and how can we better address them in our draft recommendations and report? See e.g, comment of Center for Democracy and Technology, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge. To Steve's three topics and sub-teams below, I would add the following important expansion to insure that we look into the full range of topics an issue offers -- even if those who commented did not use the right words or vocabulary - additions in italics below. (1) Section 1.3.2 of the Initial Report (on escalation of relay requests and the handling of disclosure/publication requests from third parties other than IP rights holders); (2) Section 1.3.3 (on the open question regarding online financial transactions) to include a review of those comments that addressed the commerical/noncommercial distinction more generally and evaluate if these commenters provide insight and guidance on the "sub-commercial use" issue of financial transactions as well (with note that those outside of ICANN may use non-ICANN terms and vocabulary to approach the same concern); and (3) Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework) -- hopefully with the subteam also evaluate the new subtopic A, Due Process, and the issues commenters have raised in their thousands of "due process" comments as they might impact the review and revisions of these detailed framework recommendations. Best, Kathy