As often I agree with Michele. I think P/P services should be available to anyone. If lawmakers (in the EU at least) extend the mandatory identification of commercial website publishers and hosting providers to domain name registrants, then we will have to find a way to deal with that. But for now, even those not so tech savvy people, were wise enough to distinguish between domain name and website content and I trust we ought to uphold the same level of wisdom. I also believe the information displayed in the whois should be the same no matter the registrant’s details protected by the p/p service. Lastly, adding a flag in the whois to indicate that a domain name is using the services of a p/p service seems a good idea to me. I reckon it would help in many instances, such as for example in case of UDRP or URS proceedings. I don’t recall which registrar who is providing p/p service is (was) putting a disclaimer at the bottom of the whois record to that effect. But if they did not patented that idea, I think it would be a nice improvement (providing this within the scope of our charter). Luc On May 21, 2014, at 0:06, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Personally I think two things: 1 – P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 – the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don’t have any issue with there being a “flag” of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------

Volker Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP? M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 - P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 - the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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.

James I know they can't create a new field, but *if* we were to decide that it had to be indicated clearly in the whois output somehow then potentially having a new field added to output should be considered. In the interim flagging it somehow .. M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:08 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Are we talking about a new kind of status? I think any flag would have to be in the data field itself. The P/P provider cannot create a new field for the "flag" or set /clear flags in WHOIS. That's the Registrar. For example, if there is some future equivalent to IANA ID numbers for P/P services, they should append this to their name in WHOIS. J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:52 To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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 WG -- questions for list Volker Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP? M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 - P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 - the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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.

Well what's to stop me using a proxy / privacy provider's name in my registration data? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:20 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list I share the questions James is raising. All, I thought we already agreed that accredited p/p providers have to identify themselves in the "Registrant line" of the Whois listing. So that it is obvious to someone reviewing the Whois record what they are seeking, and who to contact for the underlying customer information. In that case, do we still need a new flag? Best, Kathy : Are we talking about a new kind of status? I think any flag would have to be in the data field itself. The P/P provider cannot create a new field for the "flag" or set /clear flags in WHOIS. That's the Registrar. For example, if there is some future equivalent to IANA ID numbers for P/P services, they should append this to their name in WHOIS. J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:52 To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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 WG -- questions for list Volker Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP? M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 - P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 - the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Ok, but *if* there was a field in the whois then that could be controlled #justsaying -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:33 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Nothing, just like there is nothing stopping you using my name... Am 21.05.2014 18:30, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Well what's to stop me using a proxy / privacy provider's name in my registration data? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:20 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list I share the questions James is raising. All, I thought we already agreed that accredited p/p providers have to identify themselves in the "Registrant line" of the Whois listing. So that it is obvious to someone reviewing the Whois record what they are seeking, and who to contact for the underlying customer information. In that case, do we still need a new flag? Best, Kathy : Are we talking about a new kind of status? I think any flag would have to be in the data field itself. The P/P provider cannot create a new field for the "flag" or set /clear flags in WHOIS. That's the Registrar. For example, if there is some future equivalent to IANA ID numbers for P/P services, they should append this to their name in WHOIS. J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:52 To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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 WG -- questions for list Volker Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP? M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 - P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 - the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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.

John - yes I am probably opening up a can of worms with this and maybe this isn't the best group to discuss this, but there is very little at present to stop someone from using someone else's details for things without their permission or knowledge .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of John Horton Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:44 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list As to the questions posed by Steve pertaining to C.3: 1. As you know, we believe p/p services should be available to commercial entities, unless and until the domain name is actively used for the sale of goods or services. So, we are a "partial yes" on commercial entities. 2. However, in direct answer to Steve's question, for p/p domain name registration for commercial entities not using the domain name for commercial transactions, we agree with Luc, Volker, Michele and (I think) everyone so far that the data in the Whois record should be consistent, irrespective of whether it is a non-commercial registrant or a commercial registrant. As to a flag, I think Kathy is correct that we have agreed that accredited p/p providers should identify themselves in the "registrant" line of the Whois record, and I assume this could be checked against an approved p/p provider ICANN list. However, Michele's point is an interesting one. We have seen instances in which a registrant is, without approval, putting, say, GoDaddy's or eNom's p/p Whois information into the Whois field (and being registered with an entirely different registrar). If I understand Michele's point, a flag here -- presumably only insertable by the registrar (not the registrant) -- would help to identify instances in which the p/p service is legitimately being used. Michele, is that the idea? John Horton President, LegitScript [https://static.legitscript.com/assets/logo-smaller-cdb8a6f307ce2c6172e72257d...] Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: I share the questions James is raising. All, I thought we already agreed that accredited p/p providers have to identify themselves in the "Registrant line" of the Whois listing. So that it is obvious to someone reviewing the Whois record what they are seeking, and who to contact for the underlying customer information. In that case, do we still need a new flag? Best, Kathy : Are we talking about a new kind of status? I think any flag would have to be in the data field itself. The P/P provider cannot create a new field for the “flag” or set /clear flags in WHOIS. That’s the Registrar. For example, if there is some future equivalent to IANA ID numbers for P/P services, they should append this to their name in WHOIS. J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:52 To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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 WG -- questions for list Volker Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP? M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00<tel:21.05.2014%2000>:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 – P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 – the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don’t have any issue with there being a “flag” of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%201%204811%20763> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<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

Hi Billy, actually, there is another, more common reason for using another registrars privacy details: Domain transfers. In many cases, a domain gets transferred with the privacy details still in place and the data gets copied over. I would say that 90% of all cases where we see another registrars privacy settings in domains registered with us, the registrant simply forgot to turn off the service prior to the transfer and the domain was transferred in with that data in place. Volker Am 22.05.2014 02:21, schrieb Billy Watenpaugh:

hi

- I agree that it should be available to all. -I agree that the whois should be the same.

With regards to the issue below (raised by Michele) around using someone else's Whois P/P details and just faking them in, here are my thoughts:

-people that do this are quite obviously not using the P/P service, and have just stolen it. Any registrar can tell this instantly, and a complaint about the name would reveal that immediately. Therefore, the registrant would be violating a number of rules around having true and accurate whois info. Basically, they are supplying this info directly to the registrar and there is no 'underlying' true data. it's all fake and the domain name can be dealt with accordingly. Plus the fact the the email forwarding is not going to work for them for most P/P services means they are going to end up losing important compliance notices as well. And further, most of this should have been taken care of by the Registrant Verification rules in the 2013 RAA. -we don't really need an extra field approved to be added to the Whois. IMO this is making unnecessary work for ourselves. The RAA already allows a registrar to add additional terms at the bottom of the Whois record. This cannot be faked. So a registrar could very easily put in language on any domain using P/P services information around it. I am not even sure we should require this or have a policy for it. It's more like a Best Practice to me and would be a way of distinguishing reputable P/P services against poor ones.

I think manipulating the Whois records is just making a bunch of extra work for us that we don't really need to do.

-billy

On May 21, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:

...

John - yes I am probably opening up a can of worms with this and maybe this isn't the best group to discuss this, but there is very little at present to stop someone from using someone else's details for things without their permission or knowledge .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie <http://www.technology.ie/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter:http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*John Horton *Sent:*Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:44 PM *To:*Kathy Kleiman *Cc:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list As to the questions posed by Steve pertaining to C.3:

1. As you know, we believe p/p services should be available to commercial entities, unless and until the domain name is actively used for the sale of goods or services. So, we are a "partial yes" on commercial entities. 2. However, in direct answer to Steve's question, for p/p domain name registration for commercial entities not using the domain name for commercial transactions, we agree with Luc, Volker, Michele and (I think) everyone so far that the data in the Whois record should be consistent, irrespective of whether it is a non-commercial registrant or a commercial registrant.

As to a flag, I think Kathy is correct that we have agreed that accredited p/p providers should identify themselves in the "registrant" line of the Whois record, and I assume this could be checked against an approved p/p provider ICANN list. However, Michele's point is an interesting one. We have seen instances in which a registrant is, without approval, putting, say, GoDaddy's or eNom's p/p Whois information into the Whois field (and being registered with an entirely different registrar). If I understand Michele's point, a flag here -- presumably only insertable by the registrar (not the registrant) -- would help to identify instances in which the p/p service is legitimately being used. Michele, is that the idea?

John Horton President, LegitScript *Follow****Legit**Script*:LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | _Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com/>_ |Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: I share the questions James is raising. All, I thought we already agreed that accredited p/p providers have to identify themselves in the "Registrant line" of the Whois listing. So that it is obvious to someone reviewing the Whois record what they are seeking, and who to contact for the underlying customer information. In that case, do we still need a new flag?

Best, Kathy :

Are we talking about a new kind of status? I think any flag would have to be in the data field itself. The P/P provider cannot create a new field for the "flag" or set /clear flags in WHOIS. That's the Registrar. For example, if there is some future equivalent to IANA ID numbers for P/P services, they should append this to their name in WHOIS. J. *From:*Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> *Date:*Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:52 *To:*Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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 WG -- questions for list Volker Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP? M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie <http://www.technology.ie/> Intl.+353 (0) 59 9183072 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> Direct Dial:+353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter:http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Volker Greimann *Sent:*Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM *To:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Agreed.

1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary.

Volker

Am21.05.2014 00 <tel:21.05.2014%2000>:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Personally I think two things: 1 -- P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 -- the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie <http://www.technology.ie/> Intl.+353 (0) 59 9183072 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial:+353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Fax.+353 (0) 1 4811 763 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%201%204811%20763> Twitter:http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Metalitz, Steven *Sent:*Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM *To:*'Marika Konings';gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Marika Konings *Sent:*Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM *To:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika *Proposed Agenda -- PPSAI WG Meeting -- 20 May 2014*

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 -- is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

--

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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901>

Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851>

Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>

www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901>

Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851>

Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>

www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <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 _______________________________________________ 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

________________________ Billy Watenpaugh Director of Products & Infrastructure

Uniregistry, Corp. 3-110 Governors Square Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands 1361GT KY1-1108 mobile +1.345.939.9970 billy@uniregistry.com <mailto:billy@uniregistry.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.

Per Kathy's email, I thought it might be helpful to remind you of the WG's Preliminary Conclusion for Question B-1: 'The WG agrees that domain name registrations involving privacy/proxy service providers should be clearly labeled as such in Whois. The WG observes that there may be various ways to implement this recommendation in order to achieve this objective and suggests that the feasibility and effectiveness of these options is further explored as part of the implementation process. As an example, it was suggested that P/P services could be required to provide the registration data in a uniform / standard format that would make it clear that the domain name registration involves a P/P service such as entering in the field for registrant information ŒService Name, on behalf of customer¹ (in the case of a proxy service this could then include a number, customer #512, while in the case of a privacy service it would include the actual customer name). Following submission of this information to the registrar, this information would then be displayed in Whois making it clearly identifiable as a domain name registration involving a P/P service'. Best regards, Marika From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Wednesday 21 May 2014 17:19 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list I share the questions James is raising. All, I thought we already agreed that accredited p/p providers have to identify themselves in the "Registrant line" of the Whois listing. So that it is obvious to someone reviewing the Whois record what they are seeking, and who to contact for the underlying customer information. In that case, do we still need a new flag? Best, Kathy :

Are we talking about a new kind of status? I think any flag would have to be in the data field itself. The P/P provider cannot create a new field for the ³flag² or set /clear flags in WHOIS. That¹s the Registrar.

For example, if there is some future equivalent to IANA ID numbers for P/P services, they should append this to their name in WHOIS.

J.

From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:52 To: 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 WG -- questions for list

Volker

Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP?

M

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Agreed.

1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary.

Volker

Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

...

Personally I think two things: 1 ­ P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 ­ the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain

With respect to point 2, I don¹t have any issue with there being a ³flag² of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P

Regards

Michele

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org 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 <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pd p-wg

I do not see it as necessary. Any such service provider will in its own best interest somehow identify himself as a p/p service provider within the current whois details, either as part of the name of the service or in some other way. A whois privacy service not identifying itself as such would have a more difficult position if it needs to evidence the fact it did not register the domain for itself if this is not somehow evident in the whois already. Adding an additional tag or flag to the whois seems to be superfluous with that in mind. Having to implement something that makes no sense seems like a waste of ressources. Alternatively, why not simply let ICANN post a list of accredited service providers and require them to have their name included in the whois details? One further thought. It seems superfluous to require registrar-affiliated services to get accredited. Better propose an amendment to the RAA that all requirements with regard to whois details, relay and reveal, etc for accredited service providers also apply to registrar-affiliated service providers. Thoughts? V. Am 21.05.2014 14:52, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Volker

Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP?

M

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Agreed.

1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary.

Volker

Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Personally I think two things:

1 -- P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them

2 -- the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain

With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting & Colocation, Domains

http://www.blacknight.co/

http://blog.blacknight.com/

http://www.technology.ie

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Locall: 1850 929 929

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763

Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM *To:* 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda -- PPSAI WG Meeting -- 20 May 2014*

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 -- is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- 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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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.

-- 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 Steve, accreditation makes most sense for operators that have no affiliation with ICANN already. Operators that are affiliated with registrars can already be bound by policy and existing agreements affecting registrars. In other words, if a registrar is required to only deal with accredited privacy service providers or such service providers affiliated with a registrar, the same rules would still apply to both, but the registrar-affiliated provider would not have to be obtain an additional accreditation. The RAA already has a spec requiring registrar-affiliated services to fulfill certain requirements. This could be amended/updated to refer to specific requirements that apply to accredited service providers. In other words, the same rules would apply, but there would be one less hoop to jump. Volker Am 21.05.2014 15:32, schrieb Metalitz, Steven:

The "alternative" suggestion could be the easiest way to solve two problems: identifying the accredited providers, and identifying which registrations they are responsible for.

I am not sure I understand the last point. What is the objection to maintaining the requirement that registrars may knowingly deal only with accredited providers, once accreditation is in place? This includes but it not limited to their affiliated providers, who should be subject to the same accreditation standards as non-affiliated providers.

Steve

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:19 AM *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

I do not see it as necessary. Any such service provider will in its own best interest somehow identify himself as a p/p service provider within the current whois details, either as part of the name of the service or in some other way. A whois privacy service not identifying itself as such would have a more difficult position if it needs to evidence the fact it did not register the domain for itself if this is not somehow evident in the whois already.

Adding an additional tag or flag to the whois seems to be superfluous with that in mind. Having to implement something that makes no sense seems like a waste of ressources.

Alternatively, why not simply let ICANN post a list of accredited service providers and require them to have their name included in the whois details?

One further thought. It seems superfluous to require registrar-affiliated services to get accredited. Better propose an amendment to the RAA that all requirements with regard to whois details, relay and reveal, etc for accredited service providers also apply to registrar-affiliated service providers. Thoughts?

V.

Am 21.05.2014 14:52, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Volker

Would you have an issue with there being an extra "flag" to indicate that a domain was using a PP?

M

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:55 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Agreed.

1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary.

Volker

Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Personally I think two things:

1 -- P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them

2 -- the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain

With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting & Colocation, Domains

http://www.blacknight.co/

http://blog.blacknight.com/

http://www.technology.ie

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Locall: 1850 929 929

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763

Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM *To:* 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda -- PPSAI WG Meeting -- 20 May 2014*

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 -- is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

--

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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>

www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>

www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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.

-- 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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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.

-- 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.

+1 [cid:247170514@21052014-2E4E]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Volker Greimann Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Mayo de 2014 06:55 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 - P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 - the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

Agreed. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:55 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 - P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 - the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting - 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 - is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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.

My responses: (1) Privacy services should be an available option for all parties, and for all legal uses. Only abusive and/or illegal activities should result in a loss of service (and potentially the domain name itself). (2) P/P Services should be required to identify themselves as such, perhaps by including an ID number (e.g. IANA). There should be no changes to the structure of the WHOIS format, as P/P Services do not control this, and Registrars may not have this information. Thanks— J. From: Darcy Southwell <Darcy.Southwell@endurance.com<mailto:Darcy.Southwell@endurance.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 21:02 To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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 WG -- questions for list I agree with the points below. Darcy From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:55 AM To: "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 WG -- questions for list Agreed. 1) There is no compelling reason to exclude potentially legal use of privacy services. 2) The service provided essentially remains the same, therefore no differentiation in the whois output is necessary. Volker Am 21.05.2014 00:06, schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Personally I think two things: 1 – P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them 2 – the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain With respect to point 2, I don’t have any issue with there being a “flag” of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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.

I agree with Michele on this, both points. Please remember any flag (if agreed) would also need to go through with registriers as well, those being of the "thick" type. Kind regards, Chris On 20/05/14 23:06, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

Personally I think two things:

1 -- P/P services should be open to anyone who wants to use them

2 -- the display in whois should be the same no matter who or what has registered the domain

With respect to point 2, I don't have any issue with there being a "flag" of some kind to indicate that a registration record is using an accredited P/P

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting & Colocation, Domains

http://www.blacknight.co/

http://blog.blacknight.com/

http://www.technology.ie

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Locall: 1850 929 929

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763

Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07 PM *To:* 'Marika Konings'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today's call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don's draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don's draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda -- PPSAI WG Meeting -- 20 May 2014*

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 -- is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed. Thanks, Libby www.FWDstrategies.com On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>wrote:

Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, " gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

*Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014*

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com P: 202-499-2296

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. Could you clarify one point: “However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreed….” Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? Steve From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed. Thanks, Libby www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. Best regards, Marika From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback. Tim

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I mean just exactly what I said. Again, please read again. Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 9:41 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

If you mean vote in an informal sense, I guess so.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

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

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Did, read my comment again.

On May 22, 2014, at 11:43 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

I mean just exactly what I said. Again, please read again.

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:41 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

If you mean vote in an informal sense, I guess so.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:37 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

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

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Marika, How would you reconcile this with what happened during the IOC/RCRC Working Group when, in order to establish consensus for particularly contentious issues, there was a "poll" or "vote"? K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Kiran, the GNSO WG Guidelines outline the process for the chairs on how to assess the level of support received which specifically does NOT include voting. I've copied the specific language below and as you can see it is intended to be an iterative process. I do want to note that the formal designation of the level of consensus typically takes place at the end of the process when recommendations are in the process of being finalised for inclusion into the Initial Report. In our case it is clear that many of the issues are tied together and the level of support may depend on the outcome on some of the other issues, so it may not be advisable or even possible to take formal consensus calls at this stage.

Best regards,

Marika

From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6

The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence.

Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.

On 22/05/14 18:37, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

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

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Hi Kiran, Please note the following paragraph from this same section: In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. I believe in the case of the IGO/INGO PDP, the first reason applied as the aim was to complete the PDP in an expedited manner. Best regards, Marika On 22/05/14 20:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Marika,

How would you reconcile this with what happened during the IOC/RCRC Working Group when, in order to establish consensus for particularly contentious issues, there was a "poll" or "vote"?

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Kiran, the GNSO WG Guidelines outline the process for the chairs on how to assess the level of support received which specifically does NOT include voting. I've copied the specific language below and as you can see it is intended to be an iterative process. I do want to note that the formal designation of the level of consensus typically takes place at the end of the process when recommendations are in the process of being finalised for inclusion into the Initial Report. In our case it is clear that many of the issues are tied together and the level of support may depend on the outcome on some of the other issues, so it may not be advisable or even possible to take formal consensus calls at this stage.

Best regards,

Marika

From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6

The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence.

Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.

On 22/05/14 18:37, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

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

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"? K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position.

For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus.

Best,

Volker

Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

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

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

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

Yes, please let’s not go down another “rodent’s lair” :-p More seriously, the document being circulated was clearly presented as a "preliminary draft for comment”. I am not a native speaker, but to me it’s obvious with such label that it is open to comment and modification. Luc On May 23, 2014, at 14:30, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? Propose a change, then move on.

Best,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"?

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position.

For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus.

Best,

Volker

Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

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

---

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

-- 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

________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work. We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this. No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services. No offense, Volker Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? Propose a change, then move on.

Best,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"?

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position.

For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus.

Best,

Volker

Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.

Tim

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

---

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 -- 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.

-- 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.

So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point. Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate. It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation. Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation. Best, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work.

We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this.

No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services.

No offense,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? Propose a change, then move on.

Best,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"?

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position.

For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus.

Best,

Volker

Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

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

-- 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.

Volker, I actually can NOT believe that you are attempting to justify a comment that is so clearly sexist and demeaning on it's face. Of course you don't see the offense in a comment that does not apply to you. I will not apologize or back down from my pending request for an apology in that matter. That being said, at what point have I refused to discuss or contribute to the substance, or "meat" of the issue? At what point did my request for an apology color my contribution or my willingness to engage? If you will go back and look at my earlier email, I only used the sexist comment to illustrate that there is, largely, no "blood feud" as you put it. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Isn't that part of the problem? Needing an apology for a comment that was in all likelyhood not meant as an offense?

I did not make the comment and I do not remember who did, but my mother does not know what whois is yet she is quite internet savvy. Do we really need to put every word uttered up for debate? Would the comment have been better as "97.63% of all mothers probably don't know what Whois is"? Should we really care about this more than the substantive issues we are trying to solve here?

If we all agree to try not to be offended by every word said in haste or without concern, we might actually get this done. Let us focus on the meat, not the fluff or distractions.

Edit: Now I looked at the transcript and know who said what, but I cannot for the heck see an intentional insult there. Agreed to move on?

Enjoy your vacation,

V.

Am 23.05.2014 15:24, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate.

It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work.

We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this.

No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services.

No offense,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? Propose a change, then move on.

Best,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"?

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

> On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: > > We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position. > > For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus. > > Best, > > Volker > > Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes. >> >> Kiran >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>> >>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. >>>>> >>>>> K >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all >>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? >>>>>> >>>>>> J. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do >>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual >>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember >>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of >>>>>>> where you fall on the issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >>>>>>> <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you clarify one point: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, >>>>>>> disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the >>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the >>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template >>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, >>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your >>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Libby >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated >>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if >>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing >>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C >>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested >>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other >>>>>>> proposed edits? >>>>>>> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of >>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed >>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >>>>>>> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it >>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact >>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P >>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on >>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses >>>>>>> are also encouraged. >>>>>>> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on >>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and >>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, >>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests >>>>>>> made on the call ---- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), >>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) >>>>>>> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond >>>>>>> on the list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial >>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in >>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p >>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify >>>>>>> the differences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES >>>>>>> people will step forward on the list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: >>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann >>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >>>>>>> Konings >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Roll Call / SOI >>>>>>> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 >>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >>>>>>> 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of >>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached) >>>>>>> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) >>>>>>> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD >>>>>>> President >>>>>>> FWD Strategies International >>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- 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. -- 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.

-- 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.

Thanks for the suggestion James. I will make a report to the Ombudsman about the original comments and subsequent bullying. Further comments directed toward me (such as Tim's commentary) can be directed toward me solely so we can get back to work. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 23, 2014, at 8:55 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

Can we get one of our Chairs/Vice-Chairs to rein in this thread? Preferably offline or via the Office of the Ombudsman.

Thanks—

J.

On 5/23/14, 8:52 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

Volker,

I actually can NOT believe that you are attempting to justify a comment that is so clearly sexist and demeaning on it's face. Of course you don't see the offense in a comment that does not apply to you.

I will not apologize or back down from my pending request for an apology in that matter.

That being said, at what point have I refused to discuss or contribute to the substance, or "meat" of the issue? At what point did my request for an apology color my contribution or my willingness to engage?

If you will go back and look at my earlier email, I only used the sexist comment to illustrate that there is, largely, no "blood feud" as you put it.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Isn't that part of the problem? Needing an apology for a comment that was in all likelyhood not meant as an offense?

I did not make the comment and I do not remember who did, but my mother does not know what whois is yet she is quite internet savvy. Do we really need to put every word uttered up for debate? Would the comment have been better as "97.63% of all mothers probably don't know what Whois is"? Should we really care about this more than the substantive issues we are trying to solve here?

If we all agree to try not to be offended by every word said in haste or without concern, we might actually get this done. Let us focus on the meat, not the fluff or distractions.

Edit: Now I looked at the transcript and know who said what, but I cannot for the heck see an intentional insult there. Agreed to move on?

Enjoy your vacation,

V.

Am 23.05.2014 15:24, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate.

It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work.

We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this.

No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services.

No offense,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

> On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" > <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: > > Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the > word "overwhelming"? > Propose a change, then move on. > > Best, > > Volker > > > Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >> So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document >> with the wording "overwhelming majority"? >> >> K >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" >>> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: >>> >>> We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what >>> the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does >>> not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus >>> position. >>> >>> For example, from the current discussion results, the >>> determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy >>> used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No >>> Consensus. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Volker >>> >>> Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. >>>> Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are >>>> welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to >>>> count those votes. >>>> >>>> Kiran >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that >>>>> counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives >>>>> of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a >>>>> voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we >>>>> have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. >>>>> The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to >>>>> determine what the consensus is. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter >>>>>> that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we >>>>>> need is SG and C input/feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a >>>>>>> couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, >>>>>>> there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) >>>>>>> input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on >>>>>>> this point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" >>>>>>>> <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? >>>>>>>> Aren¹t we all >>>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> J. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group >>>>>>>>> members, we do >>>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of >>>>>>>>> our individual >>>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's >>>>>>>>> important to remember >>>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, >>>>>>>>> regardless of >>>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >>>>>>>>> <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their >>>>>>>>> SO/AC/C, >>>>>>>>> disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for >>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern >>>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold >>>>>>>>> question. Per the >>>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to >>>>>>>>> the template >>>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies >>>>>>>>> Int'l, >>>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward >>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Libby >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the >>>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the >>>>>>>>> meeting (if >>>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits >>>>>>>>> with the mailing >>>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary >>>>>>>>> conclusion for C >>>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you >>>>>>>>> suggested >>>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there >>>>>>>>> any other >>>>>>>>> proposed edits? >>>>>>>>> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if >>>>>>>>> you are of >>>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data >>>>>>>>> fields displayed >>>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >>>>>>>>> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially >>>>>>>>> whether it >>>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P >>>>>>>>> services contact >>>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both >>>>>>>>> from P/P >>>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P >>>>>>>>> customers. Input on >>>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe >>>>>>>>> for responses >>>>>>>>> are also encouraged. >>>>>>>>> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next >>>>>>>>> meeting on >>>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P >>>>>>>>> registrations and >>>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this >>>>>>>>> context. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.o >>>>>>>>> rg>" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.o >>>>>>>>> rg>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up >>>>>>>>> on requests >>>>>>>>> made on the call ---- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions >>>>>>>>> C(threshold), >>>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially >>>>>>>>> welcomed!) >>>>>>>>> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready >>>>>>>>> reference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, >>>>>>>>> please respond >>>>>>>>> on the list: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open >>>>>>>>> to commercial >>>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a >>>>>>>>> difference in >>>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is >>>>>>>>> displayed for p/p >>>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, >>>>>>>>> please specify >>>>>>>>> the differences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that >>>>>>>>> any YES >>>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg- >>>>>>>>> bounces@icann >>>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Marika >>>>>>>>> Konings >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG >>>>>>>>> Meeting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI >>>>>>>>> WG Meeting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Roll Call / SOI >>>>>>>>> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold >>>>>>>>> question, C1 >>>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >>>>>>>>> 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in >>>>>>>>> light of >>>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached) >>>>>>>>> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template >>>>>>>>> attached) >>>>>>>>> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD >>>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International >>>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >>>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > -- > 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. -- 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.

-- 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

I am with James here. Could we please rein this is, yes preferably off line, and get on with the real work of the WG. Thanks Holly On 23 May 2014, at 11:55 pm, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

Can we get one of our Chairs/Vice-Chairs to rein in this thread? Preferably offline or via the Office of the Ombudsman.

Thanks—

J.

On 5/23/14, 8:52 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

Volker,

I actually can NOT believe that you are attempting to justify a comment that is so clearly sexist and demeaning on it's face. Of course you don't see the offense in a comment that does not apply to you.

I will not apologize or back down from my pending request for an apology in that matter.

That being said, at what point have I refused to discuss or contribute to the substance, or "meat" of the issue? At what point did my request for an apology color my contribution or my willingness to engage?

If you will go back and look at my earlier email, I only used the sexist comment to illustrate that there is, largely, no "blood feud" as you put it.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Isn't that part of the problem? Needing an apology for a comment that was in all likelyhood not meant as an offense?

I did not make the comment and I do not remember who did, but my mother does not know what whois is yet she is quite internet savvy. Do we really need to put every word uttered up for debate? Would the comment have been better as "97.63% of all mothers probably don't know what Whois is"? Should we really care about this more than the substantive issues we are trying to solve here?

If we all agree to try not to be offended by every word said in haste or without concern, we might actually get this done. Let us focus on the meat, not the fluff or distractions.

Edit: Now I looked at the transcript and know who said what, but I cannot for the heck see an intentional insult there. Agreed to move on?

Enjoy your vacation,

V.

Am 23.05.2014 15:24, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate.

It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work.

We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this.

No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services.

No offense,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

> On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" > <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: > > Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the > word "overwhelming"? > Propose a change, then move on. > > Best, > > Volker > > > Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >> So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document >> with the wording "overwhelming majority"? >> >> K >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" >>> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: >>> >>> We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what >>> the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does >>> not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus >>> position. >>> >>> For example, from the current discussion results, the >>> determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy >>> used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No >>> Consensus. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Volker >>> >>> Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. >>>> Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are >>>> welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to >>>> count those votes. >>>> >>>> Kiran >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that >>>>> counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives >>>>> of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a >>>>> voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we >>>>> have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. >>>>> The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to >>>>> determine what the consensus is. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter >>>>>> that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we >>>>>> need is SG and C input/feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a >>>>>>> couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, >>>>>>> there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) >>>>>>> input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on >>>>>>> this point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" >>>>>>>> <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? >>>>>>>> Aren¹t we all >>>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> J. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group >>>>>>>>> members, we do >>>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of >>>>>>>>> our individual >>>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's >>>>>>>>> important to remember >>>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, >>>>>>>>> regardless of >>>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >>>>>>>>> <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their >>>>>>>>> SO/AC/C, >>>>>>>>> disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for >>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern >>>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold >>>>>>>>> question. Per the >>>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to >>>>>>>>> the template >>>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies >>>>>>>>> Int'l, >>>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward >>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Libby >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the >>>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the >>>>>>>>> meeting (if >>>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits >>>>>>>>> with the mailing >>>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary >>>>>>>>> conclusion for C >>>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you >>>>>>>>> suggested >>>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there >>>>>>>>> any other >>>>>>>>> proposed edits? >>>>>>>>> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if >>>>>>>>> you are of >>>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data >>>>>>>>> fields displayed >>>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >>>>>>>>> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially >>>>>>>>> whether it >>>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P >>>>>>>>> services contact >>>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both >>>>>>>>> from P/P >>>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P >>>>>>>>> customers. Input on >>>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe >>>>>>>>> for responses >>>>>>>>> are also encouraged. >>>>>>>>> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next >>>>>>>>> meeting on >>>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P >>>>>>>>> registrations and >>>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this >>>>>>>>> context. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.o >>>>>>>>> rg>" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.o >>>>>>>>> rg>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up >>>>>>>>> on requests >>>>>>>>> made on the call ---- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions >>>>>>>>> C(threshold), >>>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially >>>>>>>>> welcomed!) >>>>>>>>> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready >>>>>>>>> reference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, >>>>>>>>> please respond >>>>>>>>> on the list: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open >>>>>>>>> to commercial >>>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a >>>>>>>>> difference in >>>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is >>>>>>>>> displayed for p/p >>>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, >>>>>>>>> please specify >>>>>>>>> the differences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that >>>>>>>>> any YES >>>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg- >>>>>>>>> bounces@icann >>>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Marika >>>>>>>>> Konings >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG >>>>>>>>> Meeting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI >>>>>>>>> WG Meeting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Roll Call / SOI >>>>>>>>> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold >>>>>>>>> question, C1 >>>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >>>>>>>>> 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in >>>>>>>>> light of >>>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached) >>>>>>>>> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template >>>>>>>>> attached) >>>>>>>>> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD >>>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International >>>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >>>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>>>> g> >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > -- > 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. -- 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.

-- 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

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I also found it offensive - but not as offensive as the recent string confusion objection public comment that claimed to simplify the issue so "even a housewife could understand." Regardless, I'm of the view that it's better handled by the Ombudsman as it's a broader, ICANN-wide issue. That email is on my to do list. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 9:58 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list Oh good grief! Any reasonable person understood what was meant and that nothing sexist was intended. By trying to label it that way you are the one attempting to deminish another. I am sorry, but I can't let that continue without saying something. If by chance you really are serious, then Kiran I can only suggest you get a thicker skin if you intend to continue in these WGs. Tim

On May 23, 2014, at 8:53 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Volker,

I actually can NOT believe that you are attempting to justify a comment that is so clearly sexist and demeaning on it's face. Of course you don't see the offense in a comment that does not apply to you.

I will not apologize or back down from my pending request for an apology in that matter.

That being said, at what point have I refused to discuss or contribute to the substance, or "meat" of the issue? At what point did my request for an apology color my contribution or my willingness to engage?

If you will go back and look at my earlier email, I only used the sexist comment to illustrate that there is, largely, no "blood feud" as you put it.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Isn't that part of the problem? Needing an apology for a comment that was in all likelyhood not meant as an offense?

I did not make the comment and I do not remember who did, but my mother does not know what whois is yet she is quite internet savvy. Do we really need to put every word uttered up for debate? Would the comment have been better as "97.63% of all mothers probably don't know what Whois is"? Should we really care about this more than the substantive issues we are trying to solve here?

If we all agree to try not to be offended by every word said in haste or without concern, we might actually get this done. Let us focus on the meat, not the fluff or distractions.

Edit: Now I looked at the transcript and know who said what, but I cannot for the heck see an intentional insult there. Agreed to move on?

Enjoy your vacation,

V.

Am 23.05.2014 15:24, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate.

It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work.

We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this.

No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services.

No offense,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? Propose a change, then move on.

Best,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: > So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"? > > K > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: >> >> We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position. >> >> For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes. >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all >>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do >>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual >>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember >>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of >>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >>>>>>>> <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, >>>>>>>> disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the >>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the >>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template >>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, >>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your >>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Libby >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated >>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if >>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing >>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C >>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested >>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other >>>>>>>> proposed edits? >>>>>>>> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of >>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed >>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >>>>>>>> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it >>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact >>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P >>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on >>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses >>>>>>>> are also encouraged. >>>>>>>> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on >>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and >>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> >>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, >>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests >>>>>>>> made on the call ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), >>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) >>>>>>>> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond >>>>>>>> on the list: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial >>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in >>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p >>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify >>>>>>>> the differences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES >>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann >>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >>>>>>>> Konings >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Roll Call / SOI >>>>>>>> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 >>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >>>>>>>> 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of >>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached) >>>>>>>> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) >>>>>>>> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD >>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International >>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- 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. -- 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.

-- 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

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

OK, all of this is not helping one bit. Can we please agree to stop discussing who said what meaning what offending whom and agree that anyone having a beef[/vegetarian alternative] with anyone else take it offlist? I am sure no one meant offense. I am further sure that what was meant by the comment was more along the lines of: "Most people (moms, dads, children, grandparents, singles, childless couples, etc) have no clue what whois is (unless it somehow relates to their job description) or they have a special interest in the workings of the internet.". That being a bit on the long side, I would further assume that it was shortened, meaning nothing with it. Of course everyone here (mothers, fathers, ...) knows what whois is, no need to state it. Because knowing that is part of our job. But out there, most people do not know. Let us try and focus on the topics we are here to discuss, instead of focussing on a trivial (with regard to our purpose here) matter. Lets argue about substance, not circumstance. If anyone has a problem with anyone else, take it up with them, but please, please, please stop dragging it out in public. Because this list is public, open for the world to read. Finally, a link to a notice we all clicked away a hundred times. Maybe we should all read it again: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en (Pop-Quiz on Tuesday...) Thanks, Volker Am 23.05.2014 17:03, schrieb Emily Emanuel:

I am a mother and found it offensive as well. I use whois all day long.

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Rosette, Kristina <krosette@cov.com <mailto:krosette@cov.com>> wrote:

I also found it offensive - but not as offensive as the recent string confusion objection public comment that claimed to simplify the issue so "even a housewife could understand."

Regardless, I'm of the view that it's better handled by the Ombudsman as it's a broader, ICANN-wide issue. That email is on my to do list.

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 9:58 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Oh good grief! Any reasonable person understood what was meant and that nothing sexist was intended. By trying to label it that way you are the one attempting to deminish another. I am sorry, but I can't let that continue without saying something. If by chance you really are serious, then Kiran I can only suggest you get a thicker skin if you intend to continue in these WGs.

Tim

> On May 23, 2014, at 8:53 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: > > Volker, > > I actually can NOT believe that you are attempting to justify a comment that is so clearly sexist and demeaning on it's face. Of course you don't see the offense in a comment that does not apply to you. > > I will not apologize or back down from my pending request for an apology in that matter. > > That being said, at what point have I refused to discuss or contribute to the substance, or "meat" of the issue? At what point did my request for an apology color my contribution or my willingness to engage? > > If you will go back and look at my earlier email, I only used the sexist comment to illustrate that there is, largely, no "blood feud" as you put it. > > K > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On May 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: >> >> Isn't that part of the problem? Needing an apology for a comment that was in all likelyhood not meant as an offense? >> >> I did not make the comment and I do not remember who did, but my mother does not know what whois is yet she is quite internet savvy. Do we really need to put every word uttered up for debate? Would the comment have been better as "97.63% of all mothers probably don't know what Whois is"? Should we really care about this more than the substantive issues we are trying to solve here? >> >> If we all agree to try not to be offended by every word said in haste or without concern, we might actually get this done. Let us focus on the meat, not the fluff or distractions. >> >> Edit: Now I looked at the transcript and know who said what, but I cannot for the heck see an intentional insult there. Agreed to move on? >> >> Enjoy your vacation, >> >> V. >> >> >> >> Am 23.05.2014 15:24, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>> So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point. >>> >>> Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate. >>> >>> It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation. >>> >>> Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work. >>>> >>>> We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this. >>>> >>>> No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services. >>>> >>>> No offense, >>>> >>>> Volker >>>> >>>> Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>>>> We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call. >>>>> >>>>> Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Kiran >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>>> On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? >>>>>> Propose a change, then move on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Volker >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>>>>>> So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Volker >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>>>>>>>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kiran >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com <mailto:tim@godaddy.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com <mailto:tim@godaddy.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all >>>>>>>>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> J. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreedS(.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com <mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com>] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template >>>>>>>>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libby >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com <http://www.FWDstrategies.com><http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C >>>>>>>>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested >>>>>>>>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed edits? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P >>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are also encouraged. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made on the call ---- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the list: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p >>>>>>>>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the differences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Roll Call / SOI >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International >>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com <http://www.fwdstrategies.com><http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> >>>>>>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> >>>>>>>> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >>>>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> >>>>>>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> >>>>>>>> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >>>>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> >>>>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> >>>>>> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >>>>>> >>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> >>>>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> >>>>>> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >>>>>> >>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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. >>>> -- >>>> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> >>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> >>>> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >>>> >>>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >>>> >>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> >>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> >>>> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >>>> >>>> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >>>> >>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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. >> >> -- >> 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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >> >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> >> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> >> >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> >> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <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 _______________________________________________ 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

-- Emily Emanuel Vice President LegitScript.com

Follow LegitScript on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | Blog <http://blog.legitscript.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.

Hi Kiran, I was not on that call, I just read the transcript mind you with regards the "mother comment". Really - can we simply move on ? You are on holiday (hopefully somewhere nice and sunny if you like Sun), and if you feel you need an apology, take it off list and direct with the person you feel needs to give you that apology. You (and maybe others) clearly have an issue with it, let me put it another way. My mother is 70 this year, she has a pc, I have been in this industry for near 18 years, and if I asked her what whois is - she would not know, but, could use google to find out. My wife is also now a mother (6 months 3 days in, Im 41 and wasn't Grey until circa 6 months 5 days ago) before knowing me, Jules (my wife) did not know what whois was or is, in fact she only knows what it is because of seeing me use it in day to day business. Now, you could argue that if you did a straw poll to 150 Ladies, some will and some won't know. You are in the industry, you will know what it is, similar to all the women/ladies/females (say all and thus cant get in trouble for being sexist) in this list as its "our job" (collectively) to know. I think we need to move on, if you want your apology, that's between you and that person - please email them (they must know you are unhappy from reading the list). I think as James mentioned we need one of Chairs/Vice chairs to simply move us on, and back to the job in hand. We have a lot to do, let's all get on with it together. Kind regards, Chris On 23/05/2014 2:52 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:

Volker,

I actually can NOT believe that you are attempting to justify a comment that is so clearly sexist and demeaning on it's face. Of course you don't see the offense in a comment that does not apply to you.

I will not apologize or back down from my pending request for an apology in that matter.

That being said, at what point have I refused to discuss or contribute to the substance, or "meat" of the issue? At what point did my request for an apology color my contribution or my willingness to engage?

If you will go back and look at my earlier email, I only used the sexist comment to illustrate that there is, largely, no "blood feud" as you put it.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Isn't that part of the problem? Needing an apology for a comment that was in all likelyhood not meant as an offense?

I did not make the comment and I do not remember who did, but my mother does not know what whois is yet she is quite internet savvy. Do we really need to put every word uttered up for debate? Would the comment have been better as "97.63% of all mothers probably don't know what Whois is"? Should we really care about this more than the substantive issues we are trying to solve here?

If we all agree to try not to be offended by every word said in haste or without concern, we might actually get this done. Let us focus on the meat, not the fluff or distractions.

Edit: Now I looked at the transcript and know who said what, but I cannot for the heck see an intentional insult there. Agreed to move on?

Enjoy your vacation,

V.

Am 23.05.2014 15:24, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

So then we agree to elevate the level of discourse, which is my point.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for an apology from whoever said that "mothers don't know what Whois is." Other than that, I see no "feud," but I do think that there is an inordinate amount of individuals brushing off other legitimate concerns. That's what I aim to eliminate.

It's not personal Volker, it's that I have every right in this forum and others to ensure that my side of the issue is fairly represented and that language choices in the documents don't unfairly color the public perception of the situation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am supposed to be on vacation.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 8:06 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

I have no issues with other people clearly deliniating their positions. OTOH, endless discussions about rodents lairs, making blanket assumptions about initial draft documents, calling others disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate seems to be less than helpful to the continued progress of this group. We need constructive work.

We are all here to get a good, solid result here, not to start blood-feuds. I hope everyone remembers that before anything else, we need to be a tam to achieve results. Sure, we may have different opinions on certain issues, but if we cannot cooperate, we are doomed to fail. We should all remember this.

No result here means that the p/p spec in the 2013 RAA will expire without having been replaced by a sold foundation for all p/p services.

No offense,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

...

We did propose a change, and we are discussing on the list in order to avoid taking precious time on the call.

Also, please refrain from calling other peoples positions a waste of time. It's disrespectful, unnecessary, and inappropriate for professional discourse.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 23, 2014, at 7:30 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Does it really matter? Do we need to waste next weeks call on the word "overwhelming"? Propose a change, then move on.

Best,

Volker

Am 23.05.2014 14:10, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: > So if everyone is so well aware, why did we end up with a document with the wording "overwhelming majority"? > > K > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On May 23, 2014, at 4:32 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: >> >> We are well aware of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and what the different levels of consensus mean. Tim is right: there does not need to be a vote to determine if a position is a consensus position. >> >> For example, from the current discussion results, the determination for the question of whether to prohibit commercialy used domain names from p/p services seems to be Divergence/No Consensus. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> Am 22.05.2014 18:37, schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: >>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes. >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all >>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do >>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual >>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember >>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of >>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >>>>>>>> <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, >>>>>>>> disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the >>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the >>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template >>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, >>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your >>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Libby >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated >>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if >>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing >>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C >>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested >>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other >>>>>>>> proposed edits? >>>>>>>> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of >>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed >>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >>>>>>>> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it >>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact >>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P >>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on >>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses >>>>>>>> are also encouraged. >>>>>>>> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on >>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and >>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> >>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings >>>>>>>> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, >>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests >>>>>>>> made on the call ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), >>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) >>>>>>>> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond >>>>>>>> on the list: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial >>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in >>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p >>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify >>>>>>>> the differences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES >>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann >>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >>>>>>>> Konings >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Roll Call / SOI >>>>>>>> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 >>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >>>>>>>> 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of >>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached) >>>>>>>> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) >>>>>>>> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD >>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International >>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- 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. -- 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. -- 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

You are incorrect Tim. Other SO and AC's are ALWAYS welcome to provide input in ANY GNSO working group. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 9:29 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I don't recall formally requesting input, Tim. Please read my suggestion again. I said that, picking up on James's suggestion from a couple of weeks ago, we should perform outreach since it was determined during our discussion that the implications of this issue may be quite broad. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 9:39 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

Right, anyone from the other SOs/ACs may join the WG, comment on anything we put out for public comment, etc. But I see no need to formally request their input as you seemed to suggest.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 11:36 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

You are incorrect Tim. Other SO and AC's are ALWAYS welcome to provide input in ANY GNSO working group.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 9:29 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.

Tim

...

On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

...

On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

...

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Kiran, I agree with your second sentence. I don't agree with the first because (a) in fact WG participants are not always representing the constituency or other group with which they identify and (b) as others have pointed out, there is only a very limited role for voting in WGs. But getting back to the text that you and others proposed: Could the proponents of the text identify the SG AC or C which they are representing in disagreeing with the position that use of p/p registrations for commercial activities should not be prohibited in accreditation standards? Steve Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil [Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 08:06 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: Libby Baney; Marika Konings; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. Could you clarify one point: “However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreed….” Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? Steve From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed. Thanks, Libby www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. Best regards, Marika From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ---- Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference. Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list: IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences. For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, vice chair From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Steve (and Everyone) I agree that member’s representation is not necessarily relevant here. But to clarify the position I have expressed: The ALAC formally adopted the following points on release of the P/P specification: The ALAC strongly supports amending the Privacy Proxy Specification such that: It is applicable to all Privacy and Proxy providers. The personal details of the beneficial user are verified in accordance with verification requirements in the 2013 RAA. The process should ensure that, at least when the information is collected, that the proposed beneficial user is a real person/organisation and that the contact details are those of the proposed beneficial user. Limits on access to the personal information of the beneficial user must be clear and balance the legitimate privacy requirements of the beneficial user as against the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies and UDRP providers. We did not - and do not - have concerns about whether the P/P beneficial user is a commercial entity or a person that uses the service for some/all commercial purposes. Our concerns are about accreditation of the P/P (who does it, who checks, what penalties), the accuracy of the Whois data (when and how) and limits on access that respect privacy obligations - balanced against legitimate needs for access to that data. There is a lot in that sentence that needs to be worked through but that is the baseline. I appreciate others have additional concerns, and those need to be worked through. Identification that the registrant is a P/P provider may be of assistance in that regard and if that assists resolution of this issue, terrific. I hope that clarifies both my position and the fact that the position is one that has gone through a formal ALAC vote. Holly (Member, Executive Team, ALAC) On 23 May 2014, at 3:08 am, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com> wrote:

Kiran, I agree with your second sentence. I don't agree with the first because (a) in fact WG participants are not always representing the constituency or other group with which they identify and (b) as others have pointed out, there is only a very limited role for voting in WGs.

But getting back to the text that you and others proposed:

Could the proponents of the text identify the SG AC or C which they are representing in disagreeing with the position that use of p/p registrations for commercial activities should not be prohibited in accreditation standards?

Steve

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil [Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 08:06 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: Libby Baney; Marika Konings; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

“However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreed….” Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Thanks Volker Response interspersed Holly On 23 May 2014, at 8:33 pm, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:

Hi Holly,

I see a few issues with the ALAC osition, so I hope these can be cleared up in discussion:

...

The ALAC strongly supports amending the Privacy Proxy Specification such that:

The Privacy Proxy Specificationis an obligation that the registrar has to uphold. We cannot be expected to police third party providers. Yet amending the Spec to make it applicable to all providers would do just that. If you mean that the terms of the spec should also be applied in an accreditation program for providers, that would be another matter. It is the second meaning that it applies to all. (The WG has discussed the difficulties with this, which I appreciate, but this is where ALAC started)

...

It is applicable to all Privacy and Proxy providers. The personal details of the beneficial user are verified in accordance with verification requirements in the 2013 RAA. The process should ensure that, at least when the information is collected, that the proposed beneficial user is a real person/organisation and that the contact details are those of the proposed beneficial user. ...this lacks the definition of who needs to do that verification. Agree again. This is one of the issues that we hoped would be talked through. The end result, however, is that the data held on the beneficial user should be verified. As you would be aware, some of the studies have shown that Whois data tends to be more correct when people are using a P/P provider because they have confidence their personal information will not be revealed. (I know, there is other research that shows the P/P service can also be used by those who mean harm of some kind) We have had that discussion and agreed (or at least I agree) that many of the users simply want to use a P/P service for whatever reason - and they are entitled to. Limits on access to the personal information of the beneficial user must be clear and balance the legitimate privacy requirements of the beneficial user as against the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies and UDRP providers. In other words, a clearly delineated reveal policy? Yes please. The beneficial users must know the circumstances in which their data will not be revealed - and when it will, by whom and under what limited circumstances. We haven’t had discussions on that but my understanding is that we will work through what those parameters are.

...

We did not - and do not - have concerns about whether the P/P beneficial user is a commercial entity or a person that uses the service for some/all commercial purposes. Our concerns are about accreditation of the P/P (who does it, who checks, what penalties), the accuracy of the Whois data (when and how) and limits on access that respect privacy obligations - balanced against legitimate needs for access to that data. There is a lot in that sentence that needs to be worked through but that is the baseline. Good to hear. Those concerns broadly seem similar to mine.

Best,

Volker

...

On 23 May 2014, at 3:08 am, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com> wrote:

...

Kiran, I agree with your second sentence. I don't agree with the first because (a) in fact WG participants are not always representing the constituency or other group with which they identify and (b) as others have pointed out, there is only a very limited role for voting in WGs.

But getting back to the text that you and others proposed:

Could the proponents of the text identify the SG AC or C which they are representing in disagreeing with the position that use of p/p registrations for commercial activities should not be prohibited in accreditation standards?

Steve

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil [Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 08:06 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: Libby Baney; Marika Konings; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of where you fall on the issue.

K

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

“However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreed….” Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?

Steve

From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments and further discussion if needed.

Thanks, Libby

www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:

1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other proposed edits? 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are also encouraged. 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.

Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond on the list:

IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify the differences.

For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people will step forward on the list.

Thanks!

Steve Metalitz, vice chair

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014

1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2 (as circulated by Don) 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2? (see template attached) 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Libby Baney, JD President FWD Strategies International www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> P: 202-499-2296

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- 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