Dear Sub Team 2 members, We would like to schedule the proposed Sub Team all for TOMORROW, Tuesday 18 August, immediately followingthe full WG call. Please let us know as soon as possible if ou are NOT able to stay on after the WG call to continue with the Sub Team call. GNSO Secretariat is it possible for us to just stay on the same call-in line after the WG call concludes, but staring a new recording and transcript? Please let me know tanks! Agenda-wise, we can walk through the follow-up questins I posted last week, including Holly¹s comments, if that sounds feasible and appropriate. However, please let me know if you have other suggestions! Thanks and cheers Mar Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation or Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 17:18 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] P.S. Re: Follow up from WG call on Tuesday
Thanks Mary. Call to discuss next steps sounds good to me. I could do immediately following the WG call next Tuesday, or am happy to complete a Doodle poll.
TW.
From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:14 PM Cc: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] P.S. Re: Follow up from WG call on Tuesday
SORRY not 1 September but 8 September as the ³due date² for deliverables from this Sub Team 3; 1 September is the deadline for Sub Team 2!
Cheers, and don¹t panic,
Mary
From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 16:07 Cc: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Follow up from WG call on Tuesday
Dear Sub Team 3 members,
I¹m writing to ask how you would like to proceed with your work in terms of finalizing your analysis of the comments and developing recommendations for the Working Group. The current Work Plan has the 1 September meeting as when those recommendations should be presented to the WG (though obviously things can be moved around depending on the progress made by each Sub Team).
From the WG discussion on the call, the following questions may merit further deliberation:
-Does "verifiable evidence" mean more (i.e. a higher standard) than what is currently in Annex E?
-The Save Domain Privacy petition drafters did not intend for detailed parsing as between ³verified² and ³verifiable²; their context was what's in the RAA, which basically means not just taking the word of the requester "as is". In view of this explanation, should the Sub Team, in dealing with the SDP petition (not the additional comments sent in along with it) use the plain meaning of "verifiable" (which may, but does not necessarily mean only, a court order) or some other meaning?
-What approach does the Sub Team wish to take in relation to the additional comments sent in by signatories to the Save Domain Privacy petition?
-Since requiring a court order may not always be practical and certain providers already have a practice where they disclose upon what they judge to be sufficient evidence, how (if at all) should this factor into the Sub Team¹s recommendations?
There are of course also substantive comments that the team included in its summary that were not as fully discussed on the WG call this week.
Would a Sub Team call to work through those comments and the questions above be helpful? I can send around a Doodle poll for early next week if so, unless you would like to have a call immediately following the WG meeting on Tuesday 18 August next week?
Thanks and 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 Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 21:00 Cc: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Thanks much, Vicky and everyone I will accept all changes in this document and send it out to the WG. If it¹s all right with you, I¹ll see if I can add some brief descriptive sub-headings to the various sections. As noted previously, when sending it out I¹ll be sure to mention that this is still a draft document and certain aspects continue to be the subject of discussion amongst the Sub Team.
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: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 20:39 To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Please see attached. I¹ve tried to incorporate Todd¹s suggestions. I¹ve also deleted stuff that seemed repetitive with other noted comments or comment descriptions and/or provide a more neutral description of the criticisms where applicable. Please note this is preliminary, and I may have further comments down the line. - V
From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:02 PM To: Williams, Todd Cc: Victoria Sheckler; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Folks
I think I am repeating myself here, but we are getting into dangerous territory if we put ourselves in the place of the signatories and/or drafters to decide what they meant by verifiable evidence¹. Personally, I think it means something one would be happy to place before a court, (but clearly PRIOR to the outcome of a judicial process) but that is just me. Arguably, the context of the term could agree with my interpretation - or something akin to a legal judgment of some sort.
So yes, we need to agree to disagree.
And I think it is a sensible suggestion to have two or three of us explain that we haven¹t reached agreement on the implications of the use of the term.
Holly
On 11 Aug 2015, at 8:38 am, Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com> wrote:
Thanks Vicky.
For everybody: the more I¹ve thought about it, the more I¹ve come to the conclusion that we¹re probably not going to resolve our differences on how to interpret ³verifiable evidence² before 10:00 AM tomorrow. So in the interest of being able to circulate something to the WG before our call, I propose that the only reference to the SDP submissions in our document be something like:
We also note that the Save Domain Privacy petition which had 10,042 signatories and also included [x] number of comments argued that ³privacy providers should not be forced to reveal my private information without verifiable evidence of wrongdoing.² We as a sub-team could not agree on how to interpret ³verifiable evidence,² and will leave that discussion to the larger WG.
And then Kathy, Sara, and I can each just take a little bit of time on the call tomorrow to explain our respective suggested interpretations of ³verifiable evidence² to the larger WG and leave it to them. What does everybody think of that?
TW.
From: Victoria Sheckler [mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com <mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com> ] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 5:01 PM To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Please wait for my comments before distributing anything to the broader group. I will send them tonight.
From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Williams, Todd Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:50 PM To: Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Thanks Mary. No, I¹m not putting my name on this. Nobody has responded to the questions that I raised earlier today (see attached). And we still don¹t have Vicky¹s comments. Just to reiterate my problems with the attached:
· The attached says that our sub-team is debating whether ³verifiable evidence of wrongdoing² either means court order or ³a higher standard of evidence and proof in Annex E (which is not currently a ³verifiable evidence² standard) before disclosure.² But that is not an accurate representation of our internal debate, as I¹ve outlined in the attached emails. I¹m fine telling the WG that we can¹t decide how to interpret ³verifiable evidence² (though I still don¹t understand how to interpret ³verifiable evidence² to mean ³court order²). But if we do so, we at least have to accurately reflect what the competing arguments are.
· I don¹t understand the statement that ³the sub-team noted but has not yet evaluated the 11,000 comments received from commenters arriving from the Respect Our Privacy website. These commenters, each individually, urged a rejection of Annex E in favor of due process as defined by judicial process² and that ³The sub-team is continuing to review and weigh these comments.² What does that mean? I thought from the attached email exchange that we were adding a bullet point to Category Two (after the bullet point about Key Systems) about those comments. Why are we now saying that we haven¹t evaluated them and that we¹ll continue to review and weigh them? What does that mean?
· I don¹t understand the long inclusion of arguments from Jeff Wheelhouse, Simon Kissane, ICA, EasyDNS, Endurance, and Donuts. To be precise: I¹m fine if this sub-team wants to provide argumentation in the document. But if we¹re going to do that, then we need to do it fairly, to give the WG an accurate representation. So I¹ll go back through my section and include the argumentation from INTA, MPAA, RIAA, Turner, etc., which I intentionally left out of my draft, because I was trying to keep this document as neutral as possible (because that was how I viewed the objective of our sub-team: to fairly report back to the larger WG). Obviously, to the extent that the comments I analyzed presented arguments on two sides of a question (e.g., why the cost-recovery provision in Section I(B)(iii) should stay or go), then I tried to fairly and succinctly summarize those arguments on both sides, for the benefit of the WG. But I think the only other argumentation that I included was the one sentence from individual commenter Mike Fewings.
Todd
From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Thanks, Sara! If it¹s all right with everyone, I¹ll send this version around to the WG, noting that it is still a draft under discussion by the Sub Team and as such there may be further updates on the call tomorrow (bearing in mind that Vicky has indicated she may have some comments tonight). Additionally, I can also note that some of the language in the draft is also still under discussion by the Sub Team, and some of the issues the Sub Team is discussing will be highlighted during the update to the WG.
Let me know if you would prefer another approach. Thanks!
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> > Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 13:32 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Mary,
Attached is the summary document that now includes my edits. Since it appears that we are now addressing Save Domain Privacy and Respect Our Privacy in separate paragraphs/sections of this document, I have removed references to both petitions from other sections so that there is no confusion.
Thanks,
Sara
From: Mary Wong Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: Sara Bockey, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
Hi Sara sorry, I haven¹t yet combined your document with Kathy¹s; please feel free to use whichever works best for you (e.g. dropping your document, with edits, into Kathy¹s, or just editing yours and sending it back to me). I attach both for your convenience. If I¹ve missed out a version that came in after these, please, everyone, let me know!
Thanks so much!
Cheers
Mary
From: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> > Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:31 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - questions about inclusion
> > I¹m having a hard time locating the latest document. Do we have all the > ³bucket² comments in one document yet? If so, can someone circulate it? > > > > Thanks! > > > > From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Mary Wong > Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:02 AM > To: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Hi Todd, yes, certainly thank you! Actually, my second suggestion was > really meant to have us just include a description of the 4 categories > (buckets) somewhere in the document, preferably early on. I agree that > any conclusion about the petition comments shouldn¹t be included unless > the Sub Team has agreed on it. As has been the case elsewhere, it may > also be possible to ³square bracket² or otherwise highlight the > options/differences under consideration, should that be a more > appropriate alternative before tomorrow. > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > > Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com > <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> > > Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:54 > To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, > "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " > <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Thanks Mary. To your last point: I think the question of whether the > 10,042 signatures from the Save Domain Privacy petition support or > oppose the basic premise of Annex E is what we¹re debating. So no, we > shouldn¹t use that sentence until we¹ve decided that point. > > > > I think we¹ve still got some good emails going on these open questions. > But we shouldn¹t hold up your sending out the agenda. Could you send > out the agenda noting that our sub-team will be presenting, but then > circulate our final document later once it¹s done (but before tomorrow > morning obviously)? > > > > From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:38 AM > To: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Dear all, > > > > As I¹m preparing to send out the agenda for the WG call tomorrow, along > with associated documents, I¹m trying to consolidate Kathy¹s edited > document with Sara¹s review that wasn¹t in Kathy¹s version. I also > thought to offer the following suggested edit to the language around > ³verifiable evidence² for your consideration: > > > > "The sub-team is working to better understand the meaning of ³verifiable > evidence of wrongdoing² and whether these commenters intended for this > wording to seek a different or more specific standard for > revealdisclosure, namelysuch as a court order in which the court > ³verifies² the abuse or infringement alleged with a specific judicial > finding, or alternatively, whether the commenters seek a higher standard > of evidence and proof in Annex E (which isdoes not currently specify > what is a ³verifiable evidence² standard) before disclosure. In this > regard the sub-team notes that many signatories to the petition also > added specific comments that may refer to this standard. These comments > are currently under review." > > > > The other suggestion I had was to reorganize the document slightly, to > make it clearer what the ³buckets² are. In this regard, I suggest moving > up the following summary from Sara to where Kathy¹s insertions began > (after the specific suggestions for Annex E and before Darcy¹s > additions): > > > > "Our sub-team also reviewed and analyzed 39 comments including one > with 10,000+ signatures from the Respect Our Privacy petition and one > with 10,042 signatures from the Save Domain Privacy petition that > oppose the basic premise of Annex E. The comments fell into 1 or 4 > categories: > > Category 1 - No disclosure/publication ever. > > Category 2 - No disclosure/publication unless following a court order. > > Category 3 - No disclosure/publication unless following a court order or > other legal process (such as a UDRP) > > Category 4 - No disclosure/publication unless following a court order or > other legal process (such as a UDRP), but with some exceptions for cases > of abuse." > > > > Please let me know if you have any comments or objections to the above. > Thank you! > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > > Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com > <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> > > Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 10:13 > To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, Kathy > Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >, > "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " > <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Thanks Kathy. My thoughts on the attached: > > > > · My only point on the ³contested vs. uncontested² language was to > distinguish those suggested changes to Annex E for which we received > comments on both sides of a question vs. those suggested changes for > which we did not. Mainly it was just to distinguish the final two > paragraphs conceptually. But your changes serve that same purpose well. > > · I don¹t understand why we would include ³while seeking > significantly higher standards for disclosure and options to disclosure² > in the third paragraph. We get to what changes the various comments > suggested (including which comments asked for higher disclosure > standards, and which asked for lower) later in the document. That third > paragraph is just noting which comments supported certain sections of > Annex E. Plus I¹m not sure that all of the comments mentioned in that > third paragraph did in fact seek ³significantly higher standards for > disclosure.² > > · Isn¹t the analysis of the 11,000 comments from Respect our > Privacy contained in Sara and Holly¹s section (see attached)? Why would > we reference them twice? > > · Darcy¹s analysis of the ³miscellaneous² bucket looks great. > Many thanks Darcy in many ways I think you took the most difficult > part, because sometimes it¹s hard to make sense of how exactly those > comments were relevant! > > > > Finally: for the reasons I¹ve already outlined in the attached email, I > don¹t understand why we would say that the process outlined in Annex E > ³is not currently a verifiable evidence standard.² As I mentioned > before, the "evidence" that Annex E requires, as outlined in Sections > II(A), (B), and (C), is extensive. So I don¹t see any argument why > Annex E wouldn¹t meet the ³evidence² part of ³verifiable evidence.² > > > > So I think what we¹re really trying to interpret is ³verifiable.² And > Kathy in the attached has offered the interpretation that ³verifiable² > means ³a court order in which the court verifies¹ the abuse or > infringement alleged with a specific judicial finding.² But if that was > the correct interpretation, wouldn¹t the word be ³verified² instead of > ³verifiable²? If a court has issued an order, then it has already done > the verifying. > > > > Rather, I think the basic plain meaning of ³verifiable² and hence the > meaning that we should assume the 10,000+ supporters signed on to is > simply ³able to be checked or proved.² So it seems much simpler to read > ³verifiable² to support the portions of Sections III(A), (B), and (C) of > Annex E that give P/P Providers the ability to verify the evidence > submitted by a Requester by notifying the P/P Customer of the complaint, > reviewing the P/P Customer¹s response, and then responding to the > Requester with either disclosure or its reasons for refusing to disclose > which reasons may come from either the Customer under Section > III(C)(ii), or from the P/P Provider¹s own investigation under Section > III(C)(iii). In other words, the most plausible reading of ³verifiable² > is that it simply means that it is not enough for the Requester to > provide any evidence and then disclosure automatically follows. Rather, > the evidence must be capable of being verified. Which is what Section > III provides. > > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > ] > Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 7:08 PM > To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >; Williams, Todd > <Todd.Williams@turner.com <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >; > gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Thanks everyone, that is a lot of work and a document that will clearly > help advance the WG¹s progress quite a bit! > > > > Kathy can I confirm that the document you edited is Darcy¹s update to > Todd¹s last version, and so does not include what was added/sent by > Sara? I¹m trying to keep all the drafts clear and ordered, and that¹s > what it looks like to me. If that¹s the case, I will add Sara¹s report > to Kathy¹s document (unless there are further changes between now and > the WG call on Tuesday). I¹ll then upload the consolidated draft > document and have that ready for the WG at the Tuesday meeting. > > > > All it seems to me that the question as to where the comments relating > to ³verifiable evidence² should fit is a question that you may wish to > bring back to the WG on Tuesday, if there is still no agreement amongst > yourselves by then. > > > > Finally two minor suggested changes, both to do with numbers: first, > I¹d suggest that instead of saying 10,042 comments came with the Save > Domain Privacy petition we should say that the petition had 10,042 > signatories. Secondly, I suggest adding the word ³approximately² to the > 11,000 Respect Your Privacy comments. > > > > I hope this helps, and thank you all again. Following the WG call on > Tuesday, please let me know how you would like to proceed and if there > is a need for the Sub Team to get together for a call to discuss its > final recommendations to the WG (due in about 2-3 weeks from this > Tuesday, according to the current WG Work Plan). > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > > Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Kathy Kleiman > <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> > > Date: Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 18:40 > To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com > <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Hi Todd and All, > Nice job! I reviewed the entire document and attached is my crack at our > summary. I think it includes everyone additions and edits to date (but > please check!). > > I've lost track of who drafted what sections, but I think we are moving > in the right direction. Some really good work has been done. I made one > small change and two bigger ones and few general edits. The small change > is removing the reference to contested and uncontested edits since I am > not sure what an uncontested edit and whether commenters would have > contested it if they knew what the proposed edit would be. > (Unfortunately, since our "Reply Comment" period was removed by ICANN, > we don't have this important reply time to review others edits and > support or contest them.). > > I also added in two short paragraphs. The first one describes the Save > Domains Privacy comments, the petition language, and the discussion now > in place in our sub-team over the meaning of these comments. Perhaps > others in the WG can help us shed light on the questions being raised in > our sub-team. > > The second paragraph summarizes the 11,000 Respect Our Privacy comments. > They told us that "No one's personal information should be revealed > without a court order," and of course, we should reflect them in our > summary. > > On my machine, my redlines appear in red, and the prior editor's > redlines (for the paragraphs at the end starting "Finally, our sub-team > reviewed and analyzed 21 miscellaneous comments...") appear in grey. I > hope these redlines are clear for you too. > > Best and enjoy the rest of the weekend, > Kathy > > : > > Kathy: > > > > Attached is my first crack at our portion of the summary (on the Bucket > Two comments). Let me know if you have any suggested edits, additions, > subtractions, etc. > > > > Also, I¹ve copied the entire sub-team mailing list on this email, for > two reasons: > > > > 1) So that there is a transparent public record of any > back-and-forth red-lining of the document that we may do; and > > 2) So that Sara and Holly for Bucket One, and Darcy for our > miscellaneous bucket, can see what I envision for our summary report to > the WG. If you all want to add your summaries to this one to make it > consistent in terms of formatting, etc., feel free. > > > > I had one thought Sara and Holly for Bucket One (which came to me as I > was conceptually dividing our Bucket Two comments into general support, > specific support, suggested changes by addition, suggested edits > uncontested, suggested edits contested): it may be helpful for the WG if > we divide our Bucket One comments into categories along a spectrum. As > I envision it (in order along the spectrum): > > > > 1) No disclosure/publication ever. > > 2) No disclosure/publication unless following a court order. I > would put the 10,000+ ³Respect our Privacy² comments here. > > 3) No disclosure/publication unless following a court order or other > legal process (such as a UDRP). E.g., I think the Google comment would > go here. > > 4) No disclosure/publication unless following a court order or other > legal process (such as a UDRP), but with some exceptions for cases of > abuse. E.g., I think the ICA and EasyDNS comments would go here. > > > > For the WG¹s sake, we may also want to distinguish between those Bucket > One comments that couched their discussion of disclosure/publication in > terms of what P/P Providers ought to be required to do (or not required > to do) in response to external third-party disclosure requests such as > from IP owners or LEA (e.g., the Google and Key Systems comments) vs. > those Bucket One comments that simply said ³no publication/disclosure > absent a court order² without distinguishing b/w whether the impetus for > the disclosure was an external third-party request or the P/P Provider¹s > own desire to disclose/publish (e.g., the 10,000+ ³Respect our Privacy² > comments). > > > Thanks all! > > > TW. > > > > From: Williams, Todd > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 10:06 AM > To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com> > <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> ; Kathy Kleiman > <kathy@kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> ; > gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Whoops, I left out Jawala at the bottom, who should go in bucket two. > Sorry. > > > > From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Williams, Todd > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 10:01 AM > To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Yes, thanks Mary. Of the highlighted additions in the attached, I¹ve > added the comments from Stefan Grunder, Reagan Lynch, Reid Baker, and > the Save Domain Privacy petitioners to the second bucket that Kathy and > I are reviewing/summarizing (accept premise of Annex E, but with > changes). I think the highlighted comments from Dan M, Simon Kissane, > Adam Creighton, Jason Weinberg, J Wilson, Dylan Henderson, M.B., and the > Respect our Privacy submissions should go in the first bucket that Holly > and Sara are reviewing/summarizing (reject premise of Annex E). Thanks. > > > > From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 6:47 PM > To: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Tx Mary! > Kathy > : > > Thanks again, Todd, Kathy, Holly and everyone this is just a note to > follow up on one portion of the discussion during the WG call earlier > today. I¹ll be going through the current WG Public Comment Review Tool > (Part 1, covering the WG¹s preliminary recommendations #1 through #9) to > pick out those additional comments that, though ³attached² to a > different recommendation or question, is actually more directly relevant > to the scope of this Sub Team. What this means, I¹m afraid, is that > there will most likely be an updated version of the Sub Team¹s Review > Tool (i.e. the Word document that you¹re working off of). I will try to > get that to you all as soon as I possibly can with the caveat that as > I complete preparation of the WG Tool Part 2 (covering the remainder of > the WG¹s preliminary recommendations except for those being covered by > the Sub Teams) there may yet be further updates. > > > > I¹m happy to help update any existing summary documents you may already > have as a result, of course, and, Todd, to your point about adding an > extra row to the existing Tool to reflect the Save Domain Privacy > comment in their petition, I¹m happy to do that (per Kathy¹s suggestion > on the call today) while I¹m doing the current update anyway. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > > Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Williams, Todd" > <Todd.Williams@turner.com <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> > > Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 09:55 > To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >, Holly Raiche > <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> > > Cc: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " > <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Thanks Kathy and Holly. Just to summarize where I think we are (and > again, I¹ve been working backward from what Sub-team 1.3.2 presented > last week, which I¹ve attached I assume that what our sub-team will > present next week will look something like that): > > > > · First there will be a paragraph (or bullet point or however we > want to style it) discussing those comments that argued that the WG¹s > proposed accreditation standards should hold that P/P Providers can > never disclose and/or publish under any circumstances. This section > will discuss: how many of those comments were there, who did they come > from, what did they argue. > > · Next there will be a paragraph discussing those comments that > argued that the WG¹s proposed accreditation standards should hold that > P/P Providers can only disclose and/or publish following a court order, > subpoena, or other legal process. Again, this section will discuss: how > many of those comments were there, who did they come from, what did they > argue, etc. I agree with Kathy that the ³Respect our Privacy² > submissions should be analyzed in this paragraph. I also agree with > Holly¹s point though that in this paragraph we should note that the > ³Respect our Privacy² submissions took a more extreme position than > others (like Google¹s, for example), in that they argued that P/P > Providers can only disclose and/or publish following a court order, and > didn¹t accept that other legal or ICANN-recognized processes (such as a > UDRP for example) could suffice. > > · Next there will be a paragraph discussing those comments that > argued that our WG¹s proposed accreditation standards should hold 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. My plan for this paragraph was to first have a general > summary of whose comments fell in this category. And I agree with Kathy > that the Save Domain Privacy petition signatories fit here, in that > ³verifiable evidence of wrongdoing² is what II(A), (B), and (C) of Annex > E contemplate. Following that summary, my plan was then to list each > proposed change to the language of Annex E (perhaps in a bullet point > format), followed by who recommended it, and what their arguments were > for it. That said, I disagree with Kathy that each of those comments > and all of those suggested changes will necessarily be to a ³higher > standard.² From my initial review, I think the comments are going to > recommend changes in both directions, which we ought to reflect in the > summary. > > · Finally there will be a paragraph discussing those comments that > we¹re not sure what to do with. > > > > That¹s how I see our task anyway. So far we have Sara and Holly writing > the first draft of the first two paragraphs, me and Kathy writing the > third, and Darcy writing the fourth (though of course we can all edit > the final before it goes to the entire WG). Let me know if anybody else > wants to join. And with that, my quick thoughts on some of the > bigger-picture points below: > > > > · Given that our summary will only be on what commenters said > about Annex E, and given that Annex E doesn¹t touch on LE requests, my > thought is that we should leave analysis of comments on LE to the other > sub-teams (I¹m pretty sure LE would fall in both sub-team 1 and sub-team > 4¹s work). Not that I¹m not interested in LE just that we have plenty > of work as it is, without duplicating work that is being handled by > other sub-teams. > > · In response to Mary¹s email (attached): I agree that I¹m not > sure that I see the utility of adding the form-based submissions to the > compiled template/matrix Word doc. As I understand it, the attached > Word doc is just a tool to help us get to our final work product, which > is the summary presentation to the rest of the WG. If we make a point > to discuss the form-based submissions in our summary presentation to the > rest of the WG (which, as I noted above, we¹re certainly planning to > do), then I don¹t see why we¹d need to add columns to the attached Word > doc for each of those. I mean, if somebody wants to take the time to do > so, that¹s fine. I just don¹t see how that helps us get to our final > work product. > > · Finally, one quick point: I see our sub-team¹s role, and the > role of the summary that we are to present to the entire WG next week, > as purely descriptive. In other words: what did the comments say? To > the extent that there is going to be any normative or substantive > discussion that goes one step beyond that OK, this is what the > comments said, but now what do we do about that? I think that has to > be left to the entire WG to debate after we present our summary. I¹m > just throwing out that reminder b/c I think it will help keep our work > easier. > > > > Thanks all! > > > > From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 5:49 AM > To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net > <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> > > Cc: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] UPDATED Public Comment Review Tool - > questions about inclusion > > > > Hi All, > I support the division of comments into buckets as Todd has created and > Holly has revised. Do we have four buckets now? Below (and preceeded by > "==>") I show where the two large groups of missing comments might go. > Tx! > > Hi Everyone > > > > First- sorry not to follow up sooner. And Todd - I agree with the > refined break up into three buckets- with an additional element or so. > > > > The first category is clearly no, not ever, under any circumstances. > All that is needed from us is to count the comments and where they are > from. > > > ==> So bucket one, no disclosure ever. > > The second is one I¹d like to expand a bit - and see where that gets us. > As Todd and I suggest, it is a category that specifically states the > need for a legal process. (it is framed variously as court order court > process, Subpoena) My suggestion is that the overall heading is no > reveal unless there has been a legal process of some sort in the > relevant jurisdiction. The wrinkle here is that, under an ICANN dispute > resolution process (e.g., UDRP) where details of the customer would be > revealed. Given this is a recognised ICANN process in which details are > already revealed, my suggestion is to characterise th category in that > way. > > ==> Bucket Two, disclosure of data to private parties and law > enforcement only subject to court order. This is where the "Respect our > Privacy" thousands of individual submissions fits: "No one¹s personal > information should be revealed without a court order, regardless of > whether the request comes from a private individual or law enforcement > agency². (Mary, do we happen to have a final count of these individual > submission?) > > > > My reading of both categories is to say that Annex E is not necessary > for either. (and Kathy - the comments you refer to below would fit into > the first or second basket) > > > > The third category is the only one that goes beyond what is already > required to suggest there may be other circumstances where the contact > details of the customer would be revealed to a third party that is > either not part of an ICANN process or a court process. And the > challenge will be to work through what those situations are. > > ==> Bucket Three (formerly Two) is now the one that accepts the premise > of Annex E, as Holly and Todd have laid out, but offers thoughts on how > to change the Disclosure Framework to the higher standards requested by > commenters. The question for me is what bucket the 11,000 Save Domain > Privacy petition signatories fit in: they wrote "Privacy providers > should not forced to reveal my private information without verifiable > evidence of wrongdoing." Can Annex E be revised to raise the standard > to require "verifiable evidence of wrongdoing" w/o a court order? If so, > what changes must be made in Annex E to meet this higher standard? If > not, do these 11,000+ petition signatures really belong in [revised] > Bucket 2, court order? I look forward to our discussions ahead! > > > > > > > My next query is where we put Law Enforcement Agency requests. If they > have a warrant, I¹d suggest that we put them in the second category - in > most jurisdictions, warrants are not granted without some kind of > judicial oversight. Without a warrant (or some judicial oversight), > requests by Law Enforcement/Security requests would be under some kind > of Annex. > ==> Holly, do I understand right that this might be a new Bucket Four - > LE w/o CO -- Law Enforcement w/o Court Order. I think it makes sense > and I would like to see where the comments fall on this issue. Plus > Annex E is only for private individuals/private attorneys/private > companies. So now seems to be a good time to break out informal LE > requests into its own category. > > I²ll be having a look at that third category > > > > My other way of looking at this issue is whether or not the relevant p/p > provider must make some sort of judgment call. For the first category - > the answer is a simple NO. For the second category, there is either > some sort of judicially approved document for that jurisdiction or an > approved ICANN process - or not. It is only in the third category that > the providers must make a judgment call on whether the requirements are > met, or not. > > > ==> Quick note, we still need the miscellaneous bucket that Todd created > for "unclear" bucket, so [renamed] Bucket Five = unclear? Best, Kathy > > Happy to discuss > > > > Holly > > > > On 4 Aug 2015, at 8:44 am, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Mary and All, > Glad to be with you on this subteam 3 and looking forward to our > discussion. > > Mary, I was very glad to see that Turner Broadcasting comments had been > included in this comment summary. Let me ask about the 10,000+ comments > we received, the vast majority entitled: ICANN- Respect Our Privacy. All > of these comments contain a clear call: > - No one¹s personal information should be revealed without a court > order, > regardless of whether the request comes from a private individual or law > enforcement agency. > > Sorry if I missed it, but is this call from so many thousands of > commenters for not disclosing p/p data to a private individual (which > would include a private lawyer) reflected in our comment summary tool? > > Best and tx, > Kathy > > : > > 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@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Mary Wong > <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 18:06 > To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com > <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org > <mailto: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 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@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > > > From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Williams, Todd" > <Todd.Williams@turner.com <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> > > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 16:52 > To: "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " > <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto: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 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/pdfrXQ3 > VcnSR7.pdf > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfrXQ3VcnS > R7.pdf> ) 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@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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list > Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3 > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3> > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list > Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3 > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list > Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3 > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3> > > >
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3>