Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 11 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-11aug15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03Zqpstfl9qbTbnvZTl3fC0eqWuHMOD0BVBHyXdb-2BwvgRfhsQA-3D-3D_QuA5zZR9ZZ7J1F2FeF-2FOsgm1hgIDcBrAX2P7Ezxmql7ckJc4ios1-2BxObAoz2rzLSI3c4QB1NGo7bw7XrBjpRCbz74w4vzk48UxZMFoBBQBQaQ0ePdiOjdJ30sQNHkokOf-2F2p-2FBvMgKvMhzp-2B4u8fP-2BRrSytHe2KCf2HpQmtSbpezMgNTUG57PiORAPesOotpHA-2BC4pSmXJRsVmpbNaLqzpIJDpVP2Uybbte66f7mRifKzSBNnBHzMrxPofHOVD-2F3jyQeWa2WspcSq2lsNGzgZ5uxZOP2scg5ysznoUS0gBCtcHgt2wD2aAXM2R9LG3rZNDHwDL2K12EPuhhkAUTCCzUe38vaJrC69-2F9B-2Bug1Q40zddqC-2BHMA-2B1XGXALTm6vpxAUYIlUjzt0TviFP0KMvVgkw2eDcaw9lF7EnRzz9Xm3frfonq4lIxEfYcpfgXAjUleDQKAixJwypwvdTKaRZ8wxSdbOSe6NImi3aV-2BivNQvHiWFulJqWL2DYqqm0JjRn> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton ­ RrSG Val Sherman ­ IPC Kathy Kleiman ­ NCSG Stephanie Perrin ­ NCSG Terri Stumme ­ BC Todd Williams ­ IPC Vicky Sheckler ­ IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid ­ RrSG Griffin Barnett- IPC David Cake - NCSG Sara Bockey ­ RrSG Don Blumenthal ­ RySG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick ­ Individual Holly Raiche ­ ALAC Steve Metalitz – IPC James Gannon ­ NCUC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Rudi Vansnick – NPOC James Bladel ­ RrSG Chris Pelling – RrSG Susan Kawaguchi – BC Paul McGrady ­ IPC David Hughes - IPC Apologies : Dick Leaning – Individual Carlton Samuels – ALAC Phil Corwin - BC Don Blumenthal - RySG Marika Konings -Staff Amy Bivins - Staff ICANN staff: Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 11 August 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 11th August 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:@ Holly, the operator will be dialing out to you shortly James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hey everyone Graeme Bunton:We'll get started at 1 or 2 mins after as per usual Chris Pelling:Afternoon all Holly Raiche:morning all Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the bridge Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Kathy Kleiman and Osvaldo Novoa have joined the AC room Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo and everyone, no worries, Todd is just going through the Sub Team's initial analysis of Annex E. Nathalie Peregrine:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid has joined the AC roomm Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies for being late. Nathalie Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:As has Volker Greimann James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I belive we have the drafters on the call. I suggest we ask them rather than guessing. Chris Pelling:+1 James Mary Wong:One potential issue with that (as noted for the Sub team) is that while the drafters may have a certain meaning in mind, tsome of he 10,042 signatories may have had a different meaning in mind. stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy steve metalitz:+1 Mary Vicky Sheckler:+1 mary Nathalie Peregrine:David Hughes is also on the audio bridge Mary Wong:The Sub Team has distinguished between signing the petition and submitting additional comments alongside (see the [x] in the paragraph that discusses the Save Domain Privacy petition. Nathalie Peregrine:Sara Bockey has joined the AC room Mary Wong:They plan to ask the drafters of the petition for the number that is [x]. Sara Bockey:apologies for my lateness Kathy K:I think James focuses on an area of additional work - the substance of the comments submitted along with the petition. James Bladel:200+ comments, while a minority of the campaign signatures, is still quite a large number, IMO. Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think if you look at the media coverage and oped's that were pointing people towards both petitions were clearly advocating against the premise of Annex E. I would seriously disagree on the interpreseation of the comments as supportive of Annex E. James Bladel:+1 James. I think considering these signatures as support of Annex E (as written in the Initial Report) is the larger assumption. Mary Wong:Maybe it's not possible to have a single characterization of what the signatories as a group supported or not. Perhaps the WG can consider highlighting/noting that there was a peition signed by 10,042 people that spoke to the issue, but include a further analysis/summary of what the additional comments said more specifically (to the extent they said anything specific, e.g. court order). Todd Williams:Got to run, thanks everybody. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wicheevr we look at it we will ahve over 11000 comments in opposition to the basic premise of Ammex E. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wow terrible spelling Graeme Bunton:Thanks Todd Graeme Bunton:great work on this. Holly Raiche:I like James' suggestion that it should be read in light of the use of the term in the RAA Darcy Southwell:+1 James G. Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I think we also have to remember that while these comments are relevant, they were not, as far as I am aware, given in as part of the public comments to the initial report. I am therefore unsure how much time we should spend on them in relation to the report due to time contraints. Vicky Sheckler:+1 steve Holly Raiche:Both a court order and Ssubpoena a least require a court/justice - i.e., a third, judicial person, to make a decision on what should or should not be done James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think we are treating our commenters as experienced laywers who have extensive experience in legal terminology and application of legal phrasing. They are not. Kathy K:Mission accepted, Graeme val sherman:To my knowledge, these meanings of verifiable vs verified are common steve metalitz:Agree that the subteam has done an excellent job in teeing up thse issues. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Well I certaintly wouldnt have made the distinction that is being made here. Mybe its a US commonality. val sherman:But we cannot say that those petitioned didn't understand the difference; rather, we should assume that they did. Kathy K:Adding to Steve: complaints before a court are subject to rules, including sanctions for misrepresentation. It's a high bar. We have no such enforcement mechanisms here steve metalitz:@James good point about minimum/maximum standards. One reason why rule barring disclosure without court order would be extremely difficult to maintain. Mary Wong:@James, I'm not American and would say I've understood the distinction since before moving to the US (note that this does NOT mean I/staff support any one or other suggested approach being discussed). James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Termination is different to disclusure/prublication... termination does not require the details to be published, uness Im misunderstanding stephanie Perrin:Good point James G stephanie Perrin:However something does have to go in the whois James Bladel:"Non-automated comments"? Volker A. Greimann:if that is your interpretation of what they say, maybe the best solution is to scrap this projet Volker A. Greimann:project Volker A. Greimann:(i am not advocating that, just noting it as a possible result) James Bladel:To my knowledge, none of the comments received were automated. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:What automated comments? Frank Michlick:"automated comments"? Frank Michlick:every comment was submitted by a person that initiated that process. James Bladel:Please explain "automated comments" James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:If we are going down this route and approach then should we read the comments as not supporting an accreditation regime at all then. Mary Wong:@James, a couple of comments addressed this point specifically but a number offered suggestions based on the assumption that there would be such a program. Having read most of the comments, I'm honestly not sure how that would help. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Maybe its a point we should take to "No comment left behind" a James Bladel:@Stephanie - Your comment aligns with the other text on the SDP campaign site. Vicky Sheckler:stephanie - under every p/p terms of service that i've read, part of the deal is that you don't use the domain for unlawful purposes James Bladel:@Vicky - correct. Nothing in the SDP campaign indicated that p/p providers would harbor or tolerate criminal activity. stephanie Perrin:I understand that Vicky, but that does not mean anyone can allege illegal activity and find out who you aer. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes and the rightfu definer of hat is unlawful is the courts and LEO. Vicky Sheckler:taking a "but for" approach to responsibility in an interconnected world is problematic and undermines the sytem steve metalitz:@Kathy, this is a different cost recovery process from the one addressed by subteam on 1.3.2 steve metalitz:One is for relay, one is for disclose Kathy K:Right! stephanie Perrin:Yes on more time, I have not got through all the comments yet, dont know about everyone else... James Bladel:Excluding lawers/law firms from this framework opens up a huge loophole, IMO. Concerned that good guy P/P providers would have to compete against providers hiding behind this exclusion. Chris Pelling:I beleive this is then unfair James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think that might exclude some regisrtars no? Chris Pelling:if the "service" is being offered, it is being offered by a level playing field stephanie Perrin:I dont understand how this addresses the cybercrime problem....it merely means organized criminals act through lawyers who set up firms specializing in proxy services. James Bladel:Looked at the clock and lowered my hand. :) Frank Michlick:But how do you enforce including lawyers in this? I think they should fall under this, but that would mean a change of the standard registration agreement forbidding lawyers to use their information for their clients unless they are awhois privacy/proxy provider accreddited with ICANN. steve metalitz:+1Kathy, this is an "issue spotting" phase, not for detailed discussion now. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes I would see that as a very complex issue. stephanie Perrin:That sounds doable Frank.... stephanie Perrin:We already did put the lawyer issue aside... Mary Wong:@Steve, yes - it would be really helpful if WG members can issue-spot. Kathy K:Lawyers and others (registered agent services) who might be providing extensive proxy/privacy services steve metalitz:@Let's spot the issues in 2-9 on list please! Frank Michlick:It was just brought up before... Most recently similar whois I noticed was Google's/Alphabet's abc.xyz - should DNSstitation in whois. James Bladel:Eastern Daylight. :) Frank Michlick:(it was brought up in the call) Frank Michlick:thanks everyone Mary Wong:Please send your issues to the llst. IT will help us keep track. James Bladel:Thanks, Graeme & team. Chris Pelling:thanks# Osvaldo Novoa:Thank and By James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:thanks all Kathy K:Tx Graeme, tx all! Rudi Vansnick:bye Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks all val sherman:thanks all