I won’t worry at this stage.

My concern is  with the following

.  Some on the subteam viewed these comments as supporting Annex E because of the plain meaning of the text and because Annex E calls for verifiable evidence, while others on the subteam interpret ‘verifiable evidence’ as requiring a court order and therefore not in support of Annex E.[DS1] 

I am not sure that the ‘plain meaning’ of ‘verifiable evidence’ is support for Annex E - but if that is the take away for some, okay.  I think I am in the ‘others’ camp and that position more complex.  While ‘verifiable evidence’ suggests a very high standard of evidence, it does not imply a court order (or other legal process).  As I said in an earlier comment at some point, the word verifiable does not imply that the evidence has been tested through a legal process; it suggests instead that the evidence is credible/provable enough so that, in a legal process, it would withstand legal scrutiny - but hasn’t so far.  The implication therefore, is that this test is apart from the court/legal process route - implying something apart from that.  James Bladel’s words were that he was thinking of provable in the context of the RAA - not a legal process, but a very high standard of credibility.

I realise that may seem like nitpicking, but it opens doors for fort her work in a way that Darcy’s first paragraphs don’t.

So if everyone is happy with my slightly different summation, I’ll draft a sentence or two

Holly

 [DS1]

Since the subteam can’t agree on the meaning of “verifiable evidence” as used in the petition, it doesn’t seem we should include this in the support for section.  I’ve moved it here to indicate the need for further interpretation by the PPSAI WG.



On 27 Aug 2015, at 11:45 am, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Sorry Holly, I must have missed the email with your edits. If you could kindly add them into the text, that would be great!
RE: the last call, I was referring to the Subteam 3 call... about a week ago, I think.

To Todd: I'll be back in touch later tonight. In the midst of packing for a trip to see my parents before the summer is over...

Best,
Kathy

:
Hi Kathy

Great job.  

First - I did suggest some changes to the first paragraph - I gather you aren’t happy with them?

Next - you refer to the ‘last call’.  Is that the full PPSAI or one just for Subteam 3
Thanks
Holly
On 27 Aug 2015, at 7:16 am, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Hi All,
Tx to Darcy for the Overview work.  I've taken her draft and added to it my work on Section III as promised on the last call. I added more quotes from commenters seeking court orders and the use of existing legal due process mechanisms prior to disclosure of proxied data. There was a wide array of comments on this issue, including from ISPs, individuals, organizations, and companies.

I used Darcy's version as the base. Both her edits (Overview) and my edits (Section III) are shown in "track changes."

Best,
Kathy

:
Hi, all!
In follow up to our call earlier this week, attached is an updated Sub-team 3 analysis draft with the overview added at the beginning.  I redlined my changes so you can clearly see what I’ve done.  I hope you find that I present a clear and accurate overview.

I also made some minor revisions to Section V (“Comments that did not fit neatly into any of the above categories”) that I realized after submitting my original draft of that section made a bit more sense.  Again, I’ve redlined the changes so you can easily see what changed.

Please let me know if there are any questions.

Thanks,
Darcy


_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3

<Summary of Annex E comments - 10 August - consolidated (Darcy's overview added 2015-08-21)(Kathy's Section III added).doc>_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3