+1 to Don's comments -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 9:37 PM To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] WG Status Gema, I'm not saying that any specific area is out of scope. As for the proxy privacy abuse study, I have known the primary researcher, Richard Clayton, for a long time and have absolute respect for him and his work. The study was a very good job as far as it went, but it had limitations. Some of them were pointed out in the public comments, including RySG input on which I was the primary author. I'm not sure that a discussion of the study's strengths and weaknesses is on point for the list, at least now, but am glad to discuss separately. Regards, Don From: "<Campillos Gonzalez>", Gema Maria <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es<mailto:GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es>> Date: Friday, January 10, 2014 at 6:01 AM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: WG Status Dear colleagues, Thank you, Don, for the reminder. I´ve been reviewing the WG Charter. It includes a set of "minimum" questions to be addressed, and two additional issues to be considered. I do not draw out from the Charter that studying procedures and rules for cooperation with LEAs is out of the WG´s scope. Besides, one of the "minimum" questions is "What circumstances, if any, would warrant access to registrant data by law enforcement agencies?". No territorial restriction is added. I have also gone through the paper "DEFINITIONS, SUMMARY OF RELEVANT WORK & REFERENCE LIST" and I found that the issue of privacy and proxy services has been examined before. In particular, I notice the "NPL'S Study on Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse (September 2013)", that concluded that a significant percentage of domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator´s identity" (page 7/16). Kind regards, Gema Campillos Glez De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Don Blumenthal Enviado el: viernes, 10 de enero de 2014 4:39 Para: PPSAI Asunto: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] WG Status Dear WG members, Thank you all for the interesting discussions that are taking place on the mailing list. I am wandering in with the hope that it will be helpful to summarize where we are now procedurally, and outline where and how I foresee our next few meetings going. First, as staff has explained, the GNSO PDP Manual requires each WG to solicit early feedback from other stakeholders. If I believed in capitalizing words for emphasis, I would do it for "early." Therefore, we need to finalize and send out the SO/AC letter and SG/C template as soon as possible. I have asked staff to revise these documents to include relevant definitions of certain terms, and to explain more clearly questions that on their face may be puzzling to SO/AC/SG/C recipients who are unfamiliar with the WG Charter. I plan to spend a few minutes on our call next Tuesday finalizing these changes so that the letter and template can be sent out without further delay. Keep in mind that we can send additional letters later as our work continues and we decide that we need more feedback. In addition, feel free to urge groups that you are are a part of to add additional points in their responses. Second, we need to confirm if we intend to provide feedback to the EWG on the questions that they are considering for their survey. Steve has suggested that we ask staff to assist with obtaining links to information that registrars subject to the 2013 RAA are obliged to publish. ICANN policy staff has confirmed that they will follow up with their colleagues on this request. If anyone has further suggestions relating to the EWG survey, please send an email to the list as soon as possible. As you may recall, the EWG requested our feedback by January 10, aka tomorrow (or I guess today for some members). With those items clarified and completed, we can turn to finalizing our Work Plan. We will focus on two priorities in that context: (1) whether the current proposed grouping of the Charter questions is acceptable to everyone; and (2) whether the Charter questions need to be either amended or supplemented. As part of the latter, we will need to be mindful of whether any particular new items will take us beyond scope and require that we go back to the GNSO for approval. I hope that what I have written helps to clarify the different tasks and timings that we currently face as a WG. As a final point, a couple of messages have gone to the list suggesting that members read materials that are posted on the wiki. Please do so. Some of them address questions that have arisen in discussions so far, and reviewing the documents will be very helpful as we move forward. In the short run, to aid our further discussions on the grouping and substance of the Charter questions, please be sure to review the Charter and the Summary Paper containing key definitions and terms: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsopnpsrvaccrdtwg/Background+Documents. In addition, it will be useful to look at the draft Mind Map to inform upcoming discussions on our Work Plan and how to approach the Charter questions: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43987748/PPSAI%20Work%20Pla... Talk to you on Tuesday. I'll be there this time. Really. Regards, Don