Hi everyone, The compiled template/matrix only contains those comments that directly responded to one or more of the WG¹s preliminary recommendations and/or open questions. It does not (at the moment) contain any content from any of the form-based submissions (e.g. the template emails generated by online web campaigns that were sent in the thousands). That¹s because the WG has yet to discuss whether and how to treat these emails ­ although I¹ve suggested to the Sub Teams that to the extent some of these submissions contain direct and specific comments relevant to the topic, the team may wish to consider recommending whether (or not) to include at least a reference to them in the team¹s report. This may be something to discuss more fully with the WG as well; I¹ll flag it to the chairs. Thanks, Holly! 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: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 01:57 To: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> Cc: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com>, "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan

Folks

I¹m sure I have missed something, but it isn¹t clear to me where the list of submitters on Todd¹s list comes from.

The individual submissions on the website (not including survey responses) run to 35 pages, with between 40-50 submissions per page - which is a lot more than the 76 submissions listed on Todd¹s list (and ALAC isn¹t included in any of the three baskets)

The vast majority of individual submissions would fall into either the no, never, or the only under court order/subpoena/legal requirement, and so implicitly would reject Annex E.

So Mary (of Todd or whomever) If you have a list of those submissions that do not either reject outright any revealing of information at all, or only do so under some kind of legal order/process, I would be very grateful.

Thanks

HOlly

On 4 Aug 2015, at 7:41 am, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> wrote:

...

I can tackle the 31 in Bucket 1.

Sara

From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM To: "Williams, Todd", Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan

Sorry for my silence on these latest emails and missing last week¹s meeting; I¹m just returning from vacation with my family and getting caught up on email.

Todd¹s proposal for dividing the issues into two questions seems to make sense. To Holly¹s point, maybe we can be sure to have two distinct categories for ³What arguments did they make?²: (1) the no, never under any circumstances, and (2) the ones that said only with a legal process (court order. subpoena) and include the stats to give some more color.

I¹ve only skimmed the latest document against Todd¹s categorizations, but they look fairly accurate at this point.

I can take the 21 in Bucket 3.

Thanks, Darcy

From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com> Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan

Thanks Mary. No, I hadn¹t 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? I¹m 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? I¹ll go first and am happy to take the 24 comments in Bucket Two (plus Turner¹s, 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 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 Š. ?

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 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.pd f) 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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3

---

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