Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group¹s thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include ³Publication² or ³Termination² categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
One issue I have seen with the subteam concept is that there are many who end up wanting to be on several or every subteam (including myself in that at times). So it is crucial that everyone feels comfortable with the fact that the subteam will not be making final decisions, but only informing the group to aid with consensus decisions, and will not have undue influence on the decision to be made. In any event, many may still want to be on many or all subteams and I feel it is not appropriate to tell anyone what they may or may not participate in. Tim On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:57 AM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Jim, Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group’s thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :) I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions. Best, Don From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM 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: PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan: 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. 2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues. 3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include “Publication” or “Termination” categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process. a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly. 5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support. 6. Present Report for Public Comment. This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions. Regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping - 29 Jan 2014 - kk.gb.mw.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
I would greatly appreciate any comments based on anyone's past experience regarding whether or not the subteam model (in cases where their conclusions are not governing) speed the process, or just add layers. Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:57 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan One issue I have seen with the subteam concept is that there are many who end up wanting to be on several or every subteam (including myself in that at times). So it is crucial that everyone feels comfortable with the fact that the subteam will not be making final decisions, but only informing the group to aid with consensus decisions, and will not have undue influence on the decision to be made. In any event, many may still want to be on many or all subteams and I feel it is not appropriate to tell anyone what they may or may not participate in. Tim On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:57 AM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Jim, Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :) I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions. Best, Don From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM 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: PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan: 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. 2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues. 3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process. a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly. 5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support. 6. Present Report for Public Comment. This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions. Regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping - 29 Jan 2014 - kk.gb.mw.docx> _______________________________________________ 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 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Dear Group, I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result. Best regards, Gema Campillos Deputy Director of Information Society Services Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society SPAIN De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Mary Wong Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Jim, Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :) I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions. Best, Don From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM 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: PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan: 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. 2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues. 3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process. a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly. 5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support. 6. Present Report for Public Comment. This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions. Regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
Hi Gema, One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration- So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. Volker Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.
Dear Don, Here are my suggested questions. 1) How will disputes about accreditation of a P/P service provider be resolved? 2) What will be the process for complaints that a particular accredited provider no longer satisfies accreditation standards? 3) Would there be an appeal mechanism if a provider is denied accreditation? Best Personal Regards Hector Héctor Ariel Manoff Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: <mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> amanoff@vmf.com.ar Web: <http://www.vmf.com.ar> http://www.vmf.com.ar De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Volker Greimann Enviado el: jueves, 30 de enero de 2014 11:14 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Hi Gema, One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration- So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. Volker Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group, I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result. Best regards, Gema Campillos Deputy Director of Information Society Services Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society SPAIN De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Mary Wong Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Jim, Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the groups thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :) I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions. Best, Don From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan: 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. 2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues. 3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include Publication or Termination categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process. a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly. 5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support. 6. Present Report for Public Comment. This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions. Regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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. --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa. http://www.avast.com
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant.
In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate. I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. --Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant.
In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate. I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. --Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks, Wendy and Tim - yes, those points were captured in a bullet point under the Reveal category, highlighting the possibility that there could be various options open to the customer/registrant instead of a Reveal, and flagging also the possibility of notification prior to publication (if any) of the customer/registrant's information in Whois. As with the other bullet points included in the Groupings document, the intention is to highlight these points made by various WG members for substantive discussion by the WG when it begins to discuss the related Charter question. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:58 AM To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant.
In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group, As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message... I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. Regards, Gema -----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant.
In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate. I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. --Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
On 02/04/2014 01:59 PM, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint. --Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant.
In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
I actually like this idea, and the concept of giving the privacy/proxy customer a choice: Reveal your identity and keep the domain, or protect your identity by abandoning the name. Of course, there would have to be sufficient safeguards to ensure that protecting identity and keeping a domain name is the general, default position. But overall, I¹m concerned that this thread is once again starting to micro-engineer HOW these services work, rather than identifying & requiring minimum performance baselines, and allowing service providers to innovate and differentiate from there. Thanks‹ J. On 2/4/14, 12:07 , "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
On 02/04/2014 01:59 PM, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ican n.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ica nn.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant.
In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sg bdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org %20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org% 20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sg bdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability. Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.
Hi all, I made some minor changes and added some comments to those of Gema. Best, Volker Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.
And an additional edit (while still reviewing those newly added). Best, Kathy :
Hi all,
I made some minor changes and added some comments to those of Gema.
Best,
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *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: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://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.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (9)
-
Ariel Manoff -
Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria -
James M. Bladel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Tim Ruiz -
Volker Greimann -
Wendy Seltzer