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
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