Thanks Mary for distributing these. The draft language on Relay from the October 10th session is a good starting point. Although we reserve comment on the attached preliminary conclusions for tomorrow's discussion, here are two brief points for consideration: First, and more generally, occurrences of "should" should be converted to "must" so that they are obligatory (e.g., "A P/P service provider must notify the requestor upon becoming aware that delivery of the original form of electronic communication has failed.) Second, the second bullet under the Relay category appears to address scenarios where a number of delivery failures occur within a specified time period. A Customer is required by the terms of the Provider/Customer agreement to provide an accurate e-mail address where he/she can be contacted. Certainly we can all agree that the Customer's failure to do so cannot be attributed to a third-party. The Customer is in the best position to know his or her contact information and to notify the Provider if there were any changes to it. The Customer also is or must be responsible for ensuring that he/she is contactable at the email address he/she provided. So costs to attempt to reach the Customer via a "further form of notice" due to repeated delivery failure should not be attributed to a Requestor, but to the Customer. The provision should therefore specify that any reasonable fee accrued by the Provider as a result of having to use an alternative method to contact the Customer in the event of a persistent delivery failure is to be borne by the Customer. Additionally, it is our understanding that a failure of the Customer to provide the Provider an accurate e-mail address would violate the terms of the Provider/Customer agreement, which is a ground for the Provider to terminate the Service. In the alternative to passing the "further form of notice" fee on to the Customer, the Provider could exercise the option to terminate the Service. Just some initial thoughts. Looking forward to hearing your views. Best, Val Valeriya Sherman Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel 202.944.3300 Cell 303.589.7477 vsherman@sgbdc.com<mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu> ________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Mary Wong [mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:41 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed agenda and documents for WG call on 28 October Dear WG members, We hope that those of you who were able to attend the ICANN meeting in person in Los Angeles enjoyed safe and pleasant journeys home, and that everyone has had a chance to recover from the intensity of the meetings! Here is the proposed agenda for our next WG meeting on Tuesday 28 October, as well as related documentation for your review prior to the meeting: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Review updated Work Plan (see attached document) 3. Recap/review of the WG F2F facilitated session on 10 October (recordings and transcripts posted to the WG wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/AiHxAg) 4. Continue deliberations on draft language from the 10 October session (see attached document) 5. Continue deliberations on Disclosure and Category F (see attached markup comparing the proposal from Steve Metalitz/IPC members with amendments proposed by Volker Greimann) 6. Next steps For your convenience, also attached is a Tabular Comparison document summarizing where WG discussions stand, by comparing the current situation with unaccredited providers to what might change if the WG’s various preliminary conclusions are adopted. As is the usual practice, the agenda and documents will also be posted to the WG wiki. 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