July 2015 - Gnso-ppsai3 - lists.icann.org

UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool
by Mary Wong Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

Dear all, Please find an updated Word document that now INCLUDES the extensive comments from Turner Broadcasting System (once again, thanks for spotting this omission, Todd!). They have been inserted into ROW 19 for the first question/topic (General Comments) on PAGE 16, and ROW 7 for the second question/topic (Specific Comments on the Framework Language) on PAGE 39. Apologies again for the inadvertent omission they have been added to these rows and pages simply to retain the chronology of when they were received, to maintain consistency across all the templates. I¹ll update the Sub Team wiki page accordingly. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 18:06 To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan > Hello Todd and everyone, > > Welcome to the Sub Team 3 (Annex E) mailing list! > > Todd - I think you just found an omission from staff (me), for which I > apologize. I definitely had the Turner comment in my compilation of comments > and documents, but I think what happened is that in formatting the table for > the Word document I somehow managed to edit that out. I am very sorry, and > thanks for noting it! This is exactly why staff welcomes WG members¹ > questions, and why we emphasize that our compilation/edits don¹t replace WG > members¹ reading the comments themselves if possible. At the same time, I do > hope you all know that we try our best to do as thorough and comprehensive a > job as possible, so a combination of our efforts and a WG¹s/Sub Team¹s eagle > eyes is the best arrangement. > > Basically, we read through all the comments that appeared to address specific > recommendations and/or open questions, and we also read all the online > template responses that do the same. The Word document is therefore the > compilation of all of these, tailored to each Sub Team (or the full WG, as > appropriate). I¹ve taken a quick look through my documents/collected comments > and don¹t believe I have missed out any others; however, I will do a more > thorough check shortly on all the Word documents I¹ve compiled to date for all > the Sub Teams, just to be sure. > > On the approach - from the staff perspective, Todd¹s suggested approach seems > to make sense, and would align pretty well with what we ourselves would > probably have suggested. You could start with two smaller groups to tackle the > two categories suggested, based on Todd¹s initial sweep, and in doing so also > note any comments that didn¹t address either so that they can either be > referred to the appropriate Sub Team (if any) or considered by the full WG (if > appropriate). > > BTW, Todd, maybe it¹s my machine or more likely that I haven¹t looked through > it in detail, but I¹m not seeing your comments/additions/edits in the document > you circulated . ? > > Thanks for kicking things off, and do let me know if you need assistance from > staff in any way! > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Williams, Todd" > <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com> > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 16:52 > To: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan > >> Am I the first to try this out? Cool. >> >> As I mentioned in my email on Tuesday (attached), I thought that the >> presentation that we had on our last call from the 1.3.2 sub-team was helpful >> to illustrate where we¹ll need to be by 8-11, which in turn might help us >> decide what we¹ll need to do to get there. Specifically, I thought it helped >> that the 1.3.2 sub-team divided their work into two basic questions, and then >> presented separately on each. I¹d recommend that we do the same. Here are >> the two that I¹d propose: >> >> 1) Those comments that rejected the premise of Annex E, and instead >> argued that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish absent a court >> order, subpoena, or other legal process authorizing them to do so. >> Presumably this group would present on: >> >> · How many of these comments were there? >> >> · Who did they come from? >> >> · What arguments did they make? >> >> · What ramifications would these arguments have on other portions of >> the Initial Report beyond Annex E? >> >> 2) Those comments that accepted the premise of Annex E that P/P Providers >> can sometimes disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or >> other legal process, but then offered thoughts as to whether and how the >> Disclosure Framework outlined in Annex E ought to be modified. Presumably >> this group would present on: >> >> · How many of these comments were there? >> >> · Who did they come from? >> >> · What arguments did they make? >> >> · What potential changes to Annex E could the WG make to address the >> arguments raised in these comments? >> >> >> I offer those two buckets for a couple of reasons. First, I think it will >> help our sub-team ³divide and conquer² the work that we have before us (much >> like the 1.3.2 sub-team did). Second, I¹m not really sure how we¹d otherwise >> substantively reconcile those two buckets of comments. A comment that argues >> that P/P Providers should not be allowed to disclose and/or publish absent a >> court order isn¹t arguing for changes to Annex E; it¹s arguing to scrap Annex >> E altogether. >> >> With those two buckets in mind, I¹ve taken a first pass through the comments >> in the Review Tool Word Document that Mary circulated (attached). My >> thoughts below. First, can everybody double-check to make sure that they >> agree with how I¹ve tentatively divided the comments? Once we¹re comfortable >> with that allocation, then perhaps the next step would be to divide our >> sub-team into two (or three, if some members want to tackle the third >> ³unclear² category) to start reviewing the comments in each bucket and then >> drafting two documents to present to the WG answering the questions outlined >> above (and any other questions that anybody wants to suggest). >> >> Finally, one last question for Staff: can you give us a little bit of >> information on the methodology of how the attached Word document was >> compiled? I¹m just curious because I want to make sure that our sub-team is >> comfortable that what we are reviewing is exhaustive. For example, I know >> that Turner¹s comment (available here: >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfrXQ3VcnSR7.p… >> ) had some thoughts on Annex E. Yet it wasn¹t included in the attached. And >> I only know that it mentions Annex E because I drafted it. J So I want to >> make sure that there aren¹t other comments on Annex E that we also ought to >> be reviewing. >> >> Thanks. Look forward to working with everybody. >> >> Todd. >> >> Todd D. Williams >> Counsel >> Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. >> One CNN Center, 10 North >> Atlanta, Georgia 30303 >> P: 404-827-2234 >> F: 404-827-1994 >> todd.williams(a)turner.com <mailto:todd.williams@turner.com> >> >> · Bucket One: rejects the premise of Annex E. >> >> 1) Internet Commerce Association (though with carve-out for breach of >> material service terms such as Internet abuse) >> 2) Google >> 3) 1&1 Internet SE >> 4) Access Now >> 5) Endurance Int¹l Group >> 6) Jeff Wheelhouse >> 7) EasyDNS (though with same carve-out as ICA for breach of service terms >> such as net abuse) >> 8) Greg McMullen >> 9) Evelyn Aya Snow >> 10) Ralf Haring >> 11) Liam >> 12) Dr M Klinefelter >> 13) Sam >> 14) Dan M >> 15) Adrian Valeriu Ispas >> 16) Not your business >> 17) Simon Kissane >> 18) TS >> 19) Cort Wee >> 20) Alex Xu >> 21) Kenneth Godwin >> 22) Shahed Ahmmed >> 23) Sebastian Broussier >> 24) Andrew Merenbach >> 25) Finn Ellis >> 26) Aaron Holmes >> 27) Michael Ekstrand >> 28) Homer >> 29) Donuts >> 30) Michael Ho >> 31) Key Systems >> * Bucket Two: accepts the premise of Annex E, but offers thoughts on how to >> change the Disclosure Framework. >> 1) BC >> 2) MPAA >> 3) ISPCP >> 4) CDT, Open Technology Institute & Public Knowledge >> 5) INTA >> 6) IACC >> 7) NCSG >> 8) Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas >> 9) Cyberinvasion >> 10) Phil Crooker >> 11) Aaron Myers >> 12) Cui (ADNDRC) >> 13) Mike Fewings >> 14) Name withheld >> 15) Gary Miller >> 16) Byunghoon Choi >> 17) Reid Baker >> 18) Nick O¹Dell >> 19) Time Warner >> 20) RIAA & IFPI >> 21) IPC >> 22) Thomas Smoonlock >> 23) Vanda Scartezini >> 24) Tim Kramer >> * Bucket Three: unclear. >> 1) Sven Slootweg >> 2) Brendan Conniff >> 3) Marc Schauber >> 4) Aaron Mason >> 5) Kevin Szprychel >> 6) Christopher >> 7) James Ford >> 8) Shantanu Gupta >> 9) Christopher Smith >> 10) Private >> 11) Robert Lukitsh >> 12) Adam Miller >> 13) Charles >> 14) Aaron Dalton >> 15) Stephen Black Wolf >> 16) Ian McNeil >> 17) Adam Creighton >> 18) Arthur Zonnenberg >> 19) Anand S. >> 20) Lucas Stadler >> 21) Alan

6 47

Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan
by Mary Wong Aug. 4, 2015

Aug. 4, 2015

Hello Todd and everyone, Welcome to the Sub Team 3 (Annex E) mailing list! Todd - I think you just found an omission from staff (me), for which I apologize. I definitely had the Turner comment in my compilation of comments and documents, but I think what happened is that in formatting the table for the Word document I somehow managed to edit that out. I am very sorry, and thanks for noting it! This is exactly why staff welcomes WG members¹ questions, and why we emphasize that our compilation/edits don¹t replace WG members¹ reading the comments themselves if possible. At the same time, I do hope you all know that we try our best to do as thorough and comprehensive a job as possible, so a combination of our efforts and a WG¹s/Sub Team¹s eagle eyes is the best arrangement. Basically, we read through all the comments that appeared to address specific recommendations and/or open questions, and we also read all the online template responses that do the same. The Word document is therefore the compilation of all of these, tailored to each Sub Team (or the full WG, as appropriate). I¹ve taken a quick look through my documents/collected comments and don¹t believe I have missed out any others; however, I will do a more thorough check shortly on all the Word documents I¹ve compiled to date for all the Sub Teams, just to be sure. On the approach - from the staff perspective, Todd¹s suggested approach seems to make sense, and would align pretty well with what we ourselves would probably have suggested. You could start with two smaller groups to tackle the two categories suggested, based on Todd¹s initial sweep, and in doing so also note any comments that didn¹t address either so that they can either be referred to the appropriate Sub Team (if any) or considered by the full WG (if appropriate). BTW, Todd, maybe it¹s my machine or more likely that I haven¹t looked through it in detail, but I¹m not seeing your comments/additions/edits in the document you circulated . ? Thanks for kicking things off, and do let me know if you need assistance from staff in any way! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 16:52 To: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan > Am I the first to try this out? Cool. > > As I mentioned in my email on Tuesday (attached), I thought that the > presentation that we had on our last call from the 1.3.2 sub-team was helpful > to illustrate where we¹ll need to be by 8-11, which in turn might help us > decide what we¹ll need to do to get there. Specifically, I thought it helped > that the 1.3.2 sub-team divided their work into two basic questions, and then > presented separately on each. I¹d recommend that we do the same. Here are > the two that I¹d propose: > > 1) Those comments that rejected the premise of Annex E, and instead argued > that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish absent a court order, > subpoena, or other legal process authorizing them to do so. Presumably this > group would present on: > > · How many of these comments were there? > > · Who did they come from? > > · What arguments did they make? > > · What ramifications would these arguments have on other portions of the > Initial Report beyond Annex E? > > 2) Those comments that accepted the premise of Annex E that P/P Providers > can sometimes disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other > legal process, but then offered thoughts as to whether and how the Disclosure > Framework outlined in Annex E ought to be modified. Presumably this group > would present on: > > · How many of these comments were there? > > · Who did they come from? > > · What arguments did they make? > > · What potential changes to Annex E could the WG make to address the > arguments raised in these comments? > > > I offer those two buckets for a couple of reasons. First, I think it will > help our sub-team ³divide and conquer² the work that we have before us (much > like the 1.3.2 sub-team did). Second, I¹m not really sure how we¹d otherwise > substantively reconcile those two buckets of comments. A comment that argues > that P/P Providers should not be allowed to disclose and/or publish absent a > court order isn¹t arguing for changes to Annex E; it¹s arguing to scrap Annex > E altogether. > > With those two buckets in mind, I¹ve taken a first pass through the comments > in the Review Tool Word Document that Mary circulated (attached). My thoughts > below. First, can everybody double-check to make sure that they agree with > how I¹ve tentatively divided the comments? Once we¹re comfortable with that > allocation, then perhaps the next step would be to divide our sub-team into > two (or three, if some members want to tackle the third ³unclear² category) to > start reviewing the comments in each bucket and then drafting two documents to > present to the WG answering the questions outlined above (and any other > questions that anybody wants to suggest). > > Finally, one last question for Staff: can you give us a little bit of > information on the methodology of how the attached Word document was compiled? > I¹m just curious because I want to make sure that our sub-team is comfortable > that what we are reviewing is exhaustive. For example, I know that Turner¹s > comment (available here: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfrXQ3VcnSR7.p…) > had some thoughts on Annex E. Yet it wasn¹t included in the attached. And I > only know that it mentions Annex E because I drafted it. J So I want to make > sure that there aren¹t other comments on Annex E that we also ought to be > reviewing. > > Thanks. Look forward to working with everybody. > > Todd. > > Todd D. Williams > Counsel > Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. > One CNN Center, 10 North > Atlanta, Georgia 30303 > P: 404-827-2234 > F: 404-827-1994 > todd.williams(a)turner.com <mailto:todd.williams@turner.com> > > · Bucket One: rejects the premise of Annex E. > > 1) Internet Commerce Association (though with carve-out for breach of > material service terms such as Internet abuse) > 2) Google > 3) 1&1 Internet SE > 4) Access Now > 5) Endurance Int¹l Group > 6) Jeff Wheelhouse > 7) EasyDNS (though with same carve-out as ICA for breach of service terms > such as net abuse) > 8) Greg McMullen > 9) Evelyn Aya Snow > 10) Ralf Haring > 11) Liam > 12) Dr M Klinefelter > 13) Sam > 14) Dan M > 15) Adrian Valeriu Ispas > 16) Not your business > 17) Simon Kissane > 18) TS > 19) Cort Wee > 20) Alex Xu > 21) Kenneth Godwin > 22) Shahed Ahmmed > 23) Sebastian Broussier > 24) Andrew Merenbach > 25) Finn Ellis > 26) Aaron Holmes > 27) Michael Ekstrand > 28) Homer > 29) Donuts > 30) Michael Ho > 31) Key Systems > * Bucket Two: accepts the premise of Annex E, but offers thoughts on how to > change the Disclosure Framework. > 1) BC > 2) MPAA > 3) ISPCP > 4) CDT, Open Technology Institute & Public Knowledge > 5) INTA > 6) IACC > 7) NCSG > 8) Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas > 9) Cyberinvasion > 10) Phil Crooker > 11) Aaron Myers > 12) Cui (ADNDRC) > 13) Mike Fewings > 14) Name withheld > 15) Gary Miller > 16) Byunghoon Choi > 17) Reid Baker > 18) Nick O¹Dell > 19) Time Warner > 20) RIAA & IFPI > 21) IPC > 22) Thomas Smoonlock > 23) Vanda Scartezini > 24) Tim Kramer > * Bucket Three: unclear. > 1) Sven Slootweg > 2) Brendan Conniff > 3) Marc Schauber > 4) Aaron Mason > 5) Kevin Szprychel > 6) Christopher > 7) James Ford > 8) Shantanu Gupta > 9) Christopher Smith > 10) Private > 11) Robert Lukitsh > 12) Adam Miller > 13) Charles > 14) Aaron Dalton > 15) Stephen Black Wolf > 16) Ian McNeil > 17) Adam Creighton > 18) Arthur Zonnenberg > 19) Anand S. > 20) Lucas Stadler > 21) Alan

5 7

Thoughts on a work plan
by Williams, Todd Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Am I the first to try this out? Cool. As I mentioned in my email on Tuesday (attached), I thought that the presentation that we had on our last call from the 1.3.2 sub-team was helpful to illustrate where we'll need to be by 8-11, which in turn might help us decide what we'll need to do to get there. Specifically, I thought it helped that the 1.3.2 sub-team divided their work into two basic questions, and then presented separately on each. I'd recommend that we do the same. Here are the two that I'd propose: 1) Those comments that rejected the premise of Annex E, and instead argued that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process authorizing them to do so. Presumably this group would present on: * How many of these comments were there? * Who did they come from? * What arguments did they make? * What ramifications would these arguments have on other portions of the Initial Report beyond Annex E? 2) Those comments that accepted the premise of Annex E that P/P Providers can sometimes disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process, but then offered thoughts as to whether and how the Disclosure Framework outlined in Annex E ought to be modified. Presumably this group would present on: * How many of these comments were there? * Who did they come from? * What arguments did they make? * What potential changes to Annex E could the WG make to address the arguments raised in these comments? I offer those two buckets for a couple of reasons. First, I think it will help our sub-team "divide and conquer" the work that we have before us (much like the 1.3.2 sub-team did). Second, I'm not really sure how we'd otherwise substantively reconcile those two buckets of comments. A comment that argues that P/P Providers should not be allowed to disclose and/or publish absent a court order isn't arguing for changes to Annex E; it's arguing to scrap Annex E altogether. With those two buckets in mind, I've taken a first pass through the comments in the Review Tool Word Document that Mary circulated (attached). My thoughts below. First, can everybody double-check to make sure that they agree with how I've tentatively divided the comments? Once we're comfortable with that allocation, then perhaps the next step would be to divide our sub-team into two (or three, if some members want to tackle the third "unclear" category) to start reviewing the comments in each bucket and then drafting two documents to present to the WG answering the questions outlined above (and any other questions that anybody wants to suggest). Finally, one last question for Staff: can you give us a little bit of information on the methodology of how the attached Word document was compiled? I'm just curious because I want to make sure that our sub-team is comfortable that what we are reviewing is exhaustive. For example, I know that Turner's comment (available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfrXQ3VcnSR7.p…) had some thoughts on Annex E. Yet it wasn't included in the attached. And I only know that it mentions Annex E because I drafted it. :) So I want to make sure that there aren't other comments on Annex E that we also ought to be reviewing. Thanks. Look forward to working with everybody. Todd. Todd D. Williams Counsel Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. One CNN Center, 10 North Atlanta, Georgia 30303 P: 404-827-2234 F: 404-827-1994 todd.williams(a)turner.com<mailto:todd.williams@turner.com> * Bucket One: rejects the premise of Annex E. 1) Internet Commerce Association (though with carve-out for breach of material service terms such as Internet abuse) 2) Google 3) 1&1 Internet SE 4) Access Now 5) Endurance Int'l Group 6) Jeff Wheelhouse 7) EasyDNS (though with same carve-out as ICA for breach of service terms such as net abuse) 8) Greg McMullen 9) Evelyn Aya Snow 10) Ralf Haring 11) Liam 12) Dr M Klinefelter 13) Sam 14) Dan M 15) Adrian Valeriu Ispas 16) Not your business 17) Simon Kissane 18) TS 19) Cort Wee 20) Alex Xu 21) Kenneth Godwin 22) Shahed Ahmmed 23) Sebastian Broussier 24) Andrew Merenbach 25) Finn Ellis 26) Aaron Holmes 27) Michael Ekstrand 28) Homer 29) Donuts 30) Michael Ho 31) Key Systems * Bucket Two: accepts the premise of Annex E, but offers thoughts on how to change the Disclosure Framework. 1) BC 2) MPAA 3) ISPCP 4) CDT, Open Technology Institute & Public Knowledge 5) INTA 6) IACC 7) NCSG 8) Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas 9) Cyberinvasion 10) Phil Crooker 11) Aaron Myers 12) Cui (ADNDRC) 13) Mike Fewings 14) Name withheld 15) Gary Miller 16) Byunghoon Choi 17) Reid Baker 18) Nick O'Dell 19) Time Warner 20) RIAA & IFPI 21) IPC 22) Thomas Smoonlock 23) Vanda Scartezini 24) Tim Kramer * Bucket Three: unclear. 1) Sven Slootweg 2) Brendan Conniff 3) Marc Schauber 4) Aaron Mason 5) Kevin Szprychel 6) Christopher 7) James Ford 8) Shantanu Gupta 9) Christopher Smith 10) Private 11) Robert Lukitsh 12) Adam Miller 13) Charles 14) Aaron Dalton 15) Stephen Black Wolf 16) Ian McNeil 17) Adam Creighton 18) Arthur Zonnenberg 19) Anand S. 20) Lucas Stadler 21) Alan

2 2

Privacy & Proxy Accreditation Services Issues PDP Sub Group 3
by Glen de Saint Géry July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Dear All, Thank you very much for your interest in this group. You have been added to the Privacy & Proxy Accreditation Services Issues PDP Sub Group 3. The mailing list address is: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> With public archives at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai3/ Please use only the address at which you received this email to send emails to this list. Please be aware that this email list is publicly archived. Please do not send sensitive information to this mailing list. Please contact gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you need any change to your email address. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Test - Sub Team for Annex E
by Mary Wong July 29, 2015

July 29, 2015

Hello all, just testing that this mailing list is working and that everyone who should be on it is on it! Please move all future email discussions to this list; thanks much. As a reminder, this is the current Sub Team wiki page, with the most current list of members that I have: https://community.icann.org/x/04ZCAw<https://community.icann.org/x/0YZCAw> Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0