Dear All, Please find below the attendance and MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP SubTeam4 call held on Tuesday Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 16:00 UTC. Transcript will follow upon receipt. MP3: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/r36u1m6iux8yl7zs6sm8l84tnw0pylzq.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9az5qWXNwufSFFZZrvsUurTTUcZ7YXRszFdfnpcHCKLmeL-2FtnvAfi0QfnGtHyoC41Ny3Em8poZqA-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmuAAVo6zSB1DJ5E6tvHhAPMoTEuE67ZnUYsE8lqALV-2B9l9L5prgkTsTKw-2F7oXMYBMmboChR6WjlVaa7C1VnQUpVT-2FycFjpMxHWNNgT1uBAJoPXkxr0j7FRCU1WjSXitmQvTqHj94-2BWEsvty0JZSoNcJhyqzCVucax-2BcDy5YB6g-2BzEnAWIwfE783IWB0bS9JzXL-2Fql6cXmZ7A3fISqMnPDIn8tEvFe1YMMktyyRS3jVBKgRfWZh3aA9rvEaABkADNXA7uA2Kxu37PTQzFzClTsRKnfrk-2FEGT0Nf-2Fm7jU-2FqJu6> Attendees: Kathy Kleiman NCSG Vicky Sheckler IPC Frank Michlick Individual James Gannon NCUC Paul McGrady IPC Apologies : None ICANN staff: Mary Wong Terri Agnew Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 12 August 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Sub Group call for Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Sub Team 4 teleconference on Wednesday, 12 August 2015. Frank Michlick:Sorry for joining late, I was encountering some technical difficulties Terri Agnew:@Frank, let me know if I can help with any issues Frank Michlick:I got it, I think. Thank you @Terri. Mary Wong:I'd listen to a Paul McGrady Radio Hour! Paul McGrady:Thanks Mary! Terri Agnew:Welcome James Gannon James Gannon:Sorry eveyone I lost the invite and didint put it into my calendar somehow! Mary Wong:No worries, James, welcome Terri Agnew:@James, I just sent you the call invitiation James Gannon:I've been trying to go through the form based comments that have had additoinal text added, its so difficult Mary Wong:TBH the Excel spreadsheet is probably (very relatively) easier to read, but like I said, my Mac hates Excel so I had to review the "backup" in the form of the RTF mail files. James Gannon:"Cleanish" version sent by Graeme in Numbers worked for me Mary Mary Wong:I'll paste an example of the RTF message in the Notes pod so you can see what it looks like with all the headers etc. Mary Wong:@James, sadly not for me, at least not all the time. It was easy to find and sort the form-based comments, but harder to isolate the others. So I had to bounce back and forth between that, the rtf files and the actual public forum. Vicky Sheckler:if comments go to the other categories of issues, i think we should send those comments to the other sub-groups Vicky Sheckler:as we consider the concerns raised, we also have to conside the probability of the concern raised Kathy IK:Categories in formation: 1) Array of uses/reasons for P/P, 2) Array of concerns re: P/P, 3) Unintended consquences of P/P Reveal, 4) Due Process - additional detail and discussion? Vicky Sheckler:any identification of unintended consequences needs to also consider the probability of that consequence occuring Vicky Sheckler:Kathy - i think the due process is a subject coverend in Annex E and should be addressed there, to the extent it isn't an only court order type commetn Kathy IK:@Mary, are Graeme's most recent spreadsheet and the ICANN Staff version posted on our subteam 4 wiki? could they be? Kathy IK:@Vicky: is due process only a "reveal" issue? I'm not sure... Vicky Sheckler:i beliee it is only a disclosure/reveal issue. It not a relay issue Vicky Sheckler:my typing is attrocious. sorry. Mary Wong:@Kathy, not yet but I can upload them directly after this call Vicky Sheckler:Kathy - I worry that you are in essence trying to "redo" the work of the other subteams w/o the other subteam's input. I think that would be detetrimental to the working group dynamics. But maybe i am misundersanding you? James Gannon:Its more about capturing the bigger picture items that dont fit into the direct text of the initial report. Kathy IK:Is there something else they wanted to tell us.... Vicky Sheckler:I also worry that this process of categorizing / assessing the commetns generally is being misappropriated to advocate particular points of views. At this point, we should try to be neutral in categorizing / trying to rationalize the commetnts Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ Paul. Kathy IK:yes, more buckets! James Gannon:I think that process of merging will address your concern Vicky no? James Gannon:And I understand where your coming from, and it will come from both sides but we do need to be as neutral as we can here Kathy IK:@Vicky, I truly don't want to redo the work of the other subteams. I've joined subteam 2 and 3 mostly to watch so we don't have to duplicate... James Gannon:I think me and mary have been seeing the same comments Mary Wong:@James, I agree :) Kathy IK:Additional buckets, per Mary's suggestion: a) issues concerning creation of accreditation b) definitional (input to the definitions), c) new features being suggested, e.g., periodic review James Gannon:I dont think anything should be out of scope with respect. James Gannon:Thats what this group is for. Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ paul re: decision has already been made to come up with an accreditation process. that ship has sailed. Vicky Sheckler:we can note that a minority of comments still don't like that decision James Gannon:I disagree. If we found that that is what the communty wanted then we nee to respect that view. That is the entire concept of having things go out to Public Comment. Vicky Sheckler:James - that ignores the previous community view to move forward. James Gannon:I dont belive it does, I belive that the role of the PC is to assess if the progression of the PDP is in line with what the internet community wants.. and they ahve the right to change their mind as we provide details. Mary Wong:@Vicky, @Paul - it's true we've (ICANN) committed to an accreditation program so there's not much we can do with those comments but maybe we need to note them nonetheless? Kathy IK:Merging the Categories in formation: 1) Array of uses/reasons for P/P, 2) Array of concerns re: P/P, 3) Unintended consquences of P/P Reveal, 4) Due Process - additional detail and discussion; Additional buckets, per Mary's suggestion: a) issues concerning creation of accreditation b) definitional (input to the definitions), c) new features being suggested, e.g., periodic review Mary Wong:@Kathy can you explian (2) and (4)? Vicky Sheckler:my microphone isn't working, which is why i'm typinc so much today. I disagree w/ James' characterization. there is a commitment to accreditation. The working group's goal is to find a way to get that accrediation. We may have issues w/ the WG proposal, but that isn't the same as blowing up accreditation entirely. Kathy IK:@Mary, will explain when I am called on! James Gannon:Yes sorry I wasnt arguing for that at the subteam level, but our job at the subteam level is to bring those big picture issues back to the WG Vicky Sheckler:full and complete includes more than just petition comments. I don't understand why the other commetns continue to seem to be ignored on our workign group calls. James Gannon:Agreed Vicky! James Gannon:Neutrality is imprtant in this subgroup agreed James Gannon:We will fight like dogs most lilely =) Mary Wong:Yes, there were also very many substantive, thoughtful comments - some from non-ICANN veteran participants, which was really heartening. James Gannon:Yeah some really grat ones actually, even from some of the big US civil soc groups which was amazing Paul McGrady:Issue Spotters not Evaluators! Great description Kathy! Kathy IK:Kathy IK: Merging the Categories in formation: 1) Array of uses/reasons for P/P, 2) Array of concerns re: P/P, 3) Unintended consquences of P/P Reveal, 4) Due Process - additional detail and discussion; Additional buckets, per Mary's suggestion: a) issues concerning creation of accreditation b) definitional (input to the definitions), c) new features being suggested, e.g., periodic review d_ Other topices we have not thought about yet Frank Michlick:Ready :) James Gannon:Ready =) Kathy IK:and some comments may have parts falling into several buckets Kathy IK:there are some very long comments... Vicky Sheckler:Please note I'm on business travel on tuesday Kathy IK:for tuesday, I think we might want to outline our approach Kathy IK:And Graeme's spreadsheet which is very good for PC folks Vicky Sheckler:i think due process should be send to the subteams on annex e and to the extent it is appbliable, relay. Vicky Sheckler:if we think those subteams need to say more in their summaries about due process, then we can let the;m know Vicky Sheckler:james/kathy - strongly recommend you read the COA comments re: concerns w/ the petition comments James Gannon:I have read them Vicky and diagree with the characterisations contained within Vicky Sheckler:as we think about hte buckets here, those i think might fit insome of these "no comments left behind" area, though to be fair I haven't read it in a while Vicky Sheckler:james - you may disagree, but it needs to be captured James Gannon:Agreed but that is at the WG level as its a fundamental issue. Vicky Sheckler:disagree - this is the no comments left behind group James Gannon:We can certainly include it but I think its an issue that is quite clear and is applicable to all subteams. Mary Wong:@James, I have to agree with Vicky here. Maybe this Sub Team can bring it up to the full WG as something to be considered as a fundamental issue but someone has to. Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ paul James Gannon:My cncern would be if we wait to raise it from this subteam we are doing it after the other subteams have started their work already. James Gannon:Hahaha Vicky Sheckler:i'm a word table guy too Mary Wong:I will create a Word template using the categories in the Notes pod on the right Mary Wong:It will be blank so you can each fill it in Mary Wong:Then we will have several versions of the SAME template James Gannon:Yeah makes sense Mary Wong:BTW James, for a PDP this IS the most number of comments we've received. The only greater number was 15,000 for the .xxx delegation but that was just for a single issue :) Kathy IK:Tx All! Frank Michlick:Thank you everyone James Gannon:Mary Wow so by some margin!! James Gannon:Poor staff :P James Gannon:Thanks all Mary Wong:Thanks :)