Thanks Mary.  No, I hadn’t made any edits to the document.  Just used it to review as I grouped the comments into the three buckets. 

Does anybody on the sub-team have any objection to dividing the work this way?  Or, if not, to my initial tentative placement of each of the comments into those three buckets?  I’m certainly open to any suggestions that a comment that I had read/understood as going in Bucket One should instead be grouped in Bucket Two, etc.  If not, shall we divide up to start reviewing these in more detail so that we can be ready to present by next Tuesday?  I’ll go first and am happy to take the 24 comments in Bucket Two (plus Turner’s, which would make 25).  Anybody want to join me?  Anybody want to volunteer for the 31 comments in Bucket One or the 21 in Bucket 3?  Thanks all!

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 6:06 PM
To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com>; gnso-ppsai3@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 members’ questions, and why we emphasize that our compilation/edits don’t replace WG members’ 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 WG’s/Sub Team’s 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). I’ve taken a quick look through my documents/collected comments and don’t believe I have missed out any others; however, I will do a more thorough check shortly on all the Word documents I’ve compiled to date for all the Sub Teams, just to be sure.

On the approach - from the staff perspective, Todd’s 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 Todd’s initial sweep, and in doing so also note any comments that didn’t 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 it’s my machine or more likely that I haven’t looked through it in detail, but I’m 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@icann.org

From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 16:52
To: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@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 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.pdf) 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.  J  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@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