[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for review for WG call on Tuesday 9 December
Mary Wong
mary.wong at icann.org
Mon Dec 8 15:09:27 UTC 2014
Dear all,
Per Don¹s email (below), the proposed agenda for the next WG call on Tuesday
9 December is:
1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI
2. Finalize WG recommendations on Category E Relay (see attached document
and Don¹s notes, below)
3. Review WG recommendations on Category G Termination (see attached
document potential recommendations/questions for WG highlighted in blue)
4. Next steps
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 10:15 PM
To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issues left from the last couple of weeks
> Some issues that remain from D and E. I hope that we can resolve them on the
> list and then during drafting rather than take call time.
>
> D. Transactional/nontransactional definition
> Steve formulated a definition on the call two weeks ago, subject to comment
> from WG members who support the p/p eligibility categories. I haven¹t seen any
> response so here it is again from the transcript:
>
> ³[D]omains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose
> should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.²
>
> E.
> We focused on Relay last week but didn¹t get as far as we had hoped because of
> audio issues. I copied language from the template and put additions based on
> where I think we wound up in bold. Please take a look and send comments on the
> issues as well as my language.
>
> A P/P service provider [should] [must] notify the requestor upon becoming
> aware through a timely affirmative notification of a persistent failure that
> delivery of the original form of electronic communication has failed.
> Notification may be by means of a technical mechanism or other means that
> relays notice of the delivery failure to the requestor and/or provides the
> requestor with alternate ways to escalate the issue.
>
> As part of an escalation process, and provided there has been a certain
> minimum number of affirmative persistent delivery failures of an electronic
> communication within a certain specified time frame [TBD], the provider
> [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its customer.
> A provider should have the ability to select the most appropriate means of
> forwarding (including to account for issues of cost) [and to charge a
> reasonable fee] [and any such reasonable fee is to be borne by the customer
> and not the requestor]
>
>
> Additional questions from the first paragraph:
> 1) I was asked to focus on the forward may = disclosure issue that I
> already send a note about.
>
> 2) Should vs must in the first line. I was tempted to bold ³must² but am
> noit sure that I interpreted something correctly.
>
>
> Additional questions from the second paragraph:
> The audio issues were a particular roadblock. We still need to address:
> 1) Must vs should
>
> 2) Cost recovery
>
> 3) Who pays if there is cost recovery.
>
>
> A vigorous chat session helped with respect to the audio challenges. Kathy
> circulated it once but It¹s here also for convenience.
>
> Talk to you on Tuesday.
>
> Don
>
> Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 02 December 2014:
>
> Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 02 December 2014
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Wow, I am the first one. Mark this on the calendar!
>
> Theo Geurts:we shall remember
>
> Theo Geurts:good afternoon all.
>
> Chris Pelling:afternopon all
>
> Chris Pelling:afternoon *
>
> Graeme Bunton:Good morning all
>
> Bladel:Good morning.
>
> Bladel:Who is "D"?
>
> Graeme Bunton:someone is a little heavy on the breathing
>
> D:"D" is Don B. I'll fix in a minute.
>
> Bladel:Ah, ok. :)
>
> Graeme Bunton:Sounds ok to me
>
> Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:Thanks Terri!
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:Its okay to me
>
> Chris Pelling:its breaking y up here in the uk
>
> Michele Neylon:I'm hearing stutter on both lines
>
> Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:James sounds choppy to me as well.
>
> Holly Raiche:Yes
>
> Sarah Wyld - Aplus.net:graeme, sorry.
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:You're fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge
>
> Bladel:James isn't speaking. :)
>
> Chris Pelling:I rang in and both sound like daleks
>
> Susan kawaguchi:dialed in and both are choppy
>
> Alex Deacon:sounds loud and clear on the adobe
>
> Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all
>
> Michele Neylon:I'm dialled in nad it's bad
>
> Michele Neylon:the lady speaking is fine
>
> Michele Neylon:not sure who that is
>
> Michele Neylon:Mary maybe?
>
> Chris Pelling:agree with michele
>
> Christian Dawson:Agree - fine on adobe connect and bad on the audio bridge
>
> Michele Neylon:everyone else sounds terrible
>
> Mary Wong:@Michele, that's Terri with the soothing clear speaking voice.
>
> Christian Dawson:Michele is that a value judgment?
>
> Carlton Samuels:Morning all
>
> Michele Neylon:Mary - so Terri is a woman?
>
> Michele Neylon:I didn't know that
>
> Chris Pelling:don sounds non existant now
>
> Michele Neylon:and now we have silence
>
> Chris Pelling:yes terry
>
> Carlton Samuels:Yes, loud and clear
>
> Chris Pelling:don is crackling
>
> Michele Neylon:Don's line is bad
>
> Alex Deacon:don sounds great on the adobe
>
> Michele Neylon:Graeme try please
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:Don needs to call back into the audio bridge
>
> Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing Don very clearly!
>
> Bladel:Graeme is also breaking up., I think.
>
> Holly Raiche:The rest of us are fine - Don's still fuzzy
>
> Mary Wong:@Graeme, that seems to be right.
>
> Kathy:Full House!
>
> Don Blumenthal:still working on connection
>
> Bladel:Graeme is also a bit choppy.
>
> Bladel::)
>
> Carlton Samuels:Hi Terri, Please record me present and count
>
> Mary Wong:@Carlton, thank you - we will.
>
> Michele Neylon:I'm connected via both phone and adobe
>
> Christian Dawson:Just switched to Adobe only it's much better today
>
> Terri Agnew:@ Carlton, will do
>
> Michele Neylon:switched to adobe
>
> Michele Neylon:audio is clearer
>
> Holly Raiche:AGree with Michele - the audio on adobe is fine - the dial in
> is fuzzy
>
> Chris Pelling:someone now has an echo
>
> Terri Agnew:apologies everyone for the choppy audio on telephone. We are
> working on trying to get this to clear up
>
> Michele Neylon:I've muted my microphone so it's not me
>
> vicky sheckler:apologies - i need to drop off
>
> Chris Pelling:I cant hear anything on adoibe :/
>
> Chris Pelling:so will listen to the crackle and make best do
>
> Terri Agnew:adobe seems to be the best option at the moment
>
> Don Blumenthal:I'm back on line.
>
> Graeme Bunton:Great
>
> Mary Wong:Please note that the options (still under discussion) have been
> placed in square brackets in the current text.
>
> Volker Greimann:apologies, previous meeting was running into overtime
>
> Carlton Samuels:Yes we have control
>
> Holly Raiche:We have control of the screen
>
> Kathy:We may still be in our turkey-induced coma (for those who celebrated
> Thanksgiving)
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Graeme while your technique is excellent, it might be rash
> to move on to the next item yet...:-)
>
> Kathy:No, can't hear Steve
>
> Kathy:yes
>
> Chris Pelling:I can hear steve
>
> Carlton Samuels:Yes can hear Steve
>
> Paul McGrady:Sorry I'm late.
>
> Michele Neylon:can't hear him
>
> Michele Neylon:oh I can now
>
> Chris Pelling:this is very flakey today
>
> Chris Pelling:I cant hear on adobe connect Steve
>
> Chris Pelling:but I can on the phjone
>
> Chris Pelling:Just because there is no response, does not show contact issue
>
> steve metalitz:Is there objection to "must" in the first paragraph?
>
> Chris Pelling:thus even if you pay for it, its not to get a guranteed
> response
>
> Holly Raiche:Can't hear very well
>
> Kathy:@Steve, yes.
>
> Chris Pelling:on 1 Steve it should be stating Electronic
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Steve
>
> David Cake:so Steve, you are talking about a hard bounce in email, or
> equivalent?
>
> steve metalitz:old hand
>
> Kathy:@All, yes being that "should" should be kept as "should" in the first
> sentence
>
> Bladel 2:Thanks for clarifying,. Can we get some language inserted in to
> the text somewhere so it is clear?
>
> Chris Pelling:Kathy is clear
>
> Holly Raiche:Isn't the problem if the message is sent - and may be received,
> but is not responded to . Aside from a hard bounce, could a registrar p/p
> KNOW the email has or has not been sent
>
> Mary Wong:All, the WG agreed previously to NOT use language like "hard " or
> "soft" bounces.
>
> David Cake:Did we? What language did we agree to use instead?
>
> Luc Seufer:twerking was porposed if memory serves
>
> Mary Wong:@David, that is what our notes show. Hence the chairs/staff
> suggestion in Cat E when it was first circulated, about delivery failure.
>
> Holly Raiche:It is still hard to hear on a dial out
>
> Chris Pelling:But not all servers do that
>
> Carlton Samuels:There are standard repsonses for email! Maybe we should
> eliminate the ones we don't mean
>
> Kathy:@Alex, I hate to ask, but couldyou summarize your comments in the
> Chat?
>
> Chris Pelling:Not all servers are setup to rspond like that
>
> Kathy:You are breaking up a bit...
>
> Philip Corwin:The phone bridge audio is atrocious. Brittle, crackling,
> fading in and out with an intermittent echo.
>
> Michele Neylon:if the wording is broad enough to alllow for the technical
> realities of some mail servers being dumb ..
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:Not technically difficult from MarkMonitor's perspective
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Alex's point
>
> Michele Neylon:Kiran - how many mail users do you host?
>
> Alex Deacon:@don - agree that should be the focus.
>
> Terri Agnew:as a reminder, please mute microphone and telephone when not
> speaking. We are still troubling shooting the audio issue
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:Good question, can relay back to Matt Serlin who gave me
> quick answers rather than detailed analysis.
>
> Holly Raiche:Isn't the suggestion that if the p/p becomes aware that the
> message has not been delivered, they MUST use another method of communication
>
> Michele Neylon:+1 to James
>
> Carlton Samuels:@Don: Just say that - 'when there is an affirmative notice
> that an email has not reached the intended address'
>
> Michele Neylon:we often see issues with mail being sent to Hotmail / Gmail
> etc.,
>
> Michele Neylon:and you often don't get back any useful errors
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - agree with suggestion
>
> Susan kawaguchi:only getting every other word that james is saying
>
> Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Then there is no affirmative notice so we do the
> next thing after time t; escalate
>
> Chris Pelling:dropped phone bridge
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Agree with James. Elegantly put.
>
> Bladel 2:Dang. I even dropped off the phone bridge to fix audio issue.
>
> Holly Raiche:@ James - could you put something in the chat - you were hard
> to hear
>
> Bladel 2::(
>
> Christian Dawson:It's not you James it's the bridge in general
>
> steve metalitz:@James what about Carlton's proposal: 'when there is an
> affirmative notice that an email has not reached the intended address'?
>
> Christian Dawson:By the way, +1 to your comments, James
>
> Bladel 2:The simplest summary: Reliability of detecting delivery failure
> breaks down as scale increases.
>
> val sherman:I think we are talking about situations where the Provider is
> aware of repeated delivery failures. One other point: since the Customer is
> required to provide a working email by the terms of service, would it not be
> in violation of the terms if there is repeated failure of delivery that the
> Provider is aware of? If so, might an additional option for the Provider be to
> terminate the service?
>
> Holly Raiche:What is the conclusion please
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Val - I was thinking along those lines
>
> Bladel 2:@Steve: that works, if we can clarify in the text.
>
> Stephanie Perrin:James said that costs should follow the benefitting user.
>
> Kathy:@Mary, I think this is this is the time for some clarification
>
> Kathy:It seems to be warranted at this point in the discussion...
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree - could we clarify please
>
> Mary Wong:The idea for the notification is that it is triggered when the
> provider "becomes aware".
>
> Stephanie Perrin:From a consumer protection standpoint, to avoid
> harrassment, there should be some costs accruing to the party making the
> allegations of abuse.
>
> Kathy:@Mary: that seems very loose at this point in time
>
> Kathy:it is not bounded by time, system response, etc
>
> Chris Pelling:+1 Stephanie
>
> steve metalitz:@Don, yes, provider should offer alternative upon request
> after specified number of hard bounces.
>
> Kristina Rosette:+1 to Steve
>
> Bladel 2:It could be offered as a premium service.
>
> Susan kawaguchi:If the allegations of abuse are found to be accurate would
> you advocate the registrant then be charged for the communication
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Steve - isn't he problem that there may not be 'hard'
> bounces?
>
> Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above
>
> Graeme Bunton:Lots of questiosn to addresss in the above\
>
> steve metalitz:@Don I was responding to the question you posed.....
>
> Mary Wong:Just for clarity - are we going back to the "hard bounce"
> language?
>
> Luc Seufer:do we have a definition for it?
>
> Stephanie Perrin:If I put someone who is bugging me into my spam filters, do
> you define that as a hard bounce? Innocent (read naive) question.
>
> Carlton Samuels:@Don: The rule should compel a declared form of
> communication for the provider. It is the responsibility of the communicators
> to keep that communication line open and available. We should just say if the
> response is not fortcoming within a certain time then next step is the
> defined escalation for communication to be effected. That then becomes the
> cost of the beneficial user, this time the requestor.
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - your spam filter probably wouldn't bounce
>
> Chris Pelling:if the bridge worked we might
>
> Susan kawaguchi:can barely hear anything on audio
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - agree
>
> Mary Wong:@Luc, that was one of the issues when the language was first
> discussed, including at the WG F2F in LA.
>
> Darcy Southwell:The audio is very hard to follow
>
> Luc Seufer:Or the preferred way of communication of lawyers: sending 20 meg
> attachements, does this constitute hard bounce?
>
> Bladel 2:I'm starting to think we abandon this call. :(
>
> Susan kawaguchi:should we just go to email and forget the call
>
> Holly Raiche:Actually in most cases
>
> Kathy:@Susan: impossible tracking problem for registrars. how long would it
> take until the abuse is proven - and then if it is appealed?
>
> Chris Pelling:also as Luc pointed out
>
> Chris Pelling:A lot of mail servers have message limits
>
> Susan kawaguchi:@Kathy so why punish the requestor only when most requests
> are very targeted to domain names with bad behavior
>
> Stephanie Perrin:@Michele, ok so then the message is received but tucked
> into my spam filters. What does the upset sender do then and is there any
> reason why the service provider should pick up the cost of sending by
> registered mail.
>
> Susan kawaguchi:dropping off call will follow in chat as I cannot understand
> anything on audio
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - if it doesn't bounce then I don't know about it
> ..
>
> Luc Seufer:@Mary thanks so we don't
>
> Terri Agnew:Apologies everyone, we are working with Tech Support but not
> having much luck to clear up audio
>
> Stephanie Perrin:@Michele but you will hear from the sender again....at
> which point you tell them the message was received. Go away. Correct?
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Dave - I think the issue won't go away until it is clear what
> amounts to a p/p provider becoming aware
>
> Kathy:@Susan, we were talking earlier (original discussion) about charging a
> small/reasonable charge to the requestor who wants followup. The analogy was
> the per-page cost for faxes or copies that law firms charge their clients.
> That's a charge my clients pay regardless of whether they are ultimately in
> the right -- or not.
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:There is quality discussion happening in the chat, would
> prefer to move this to email
>
> Holly Raiche:@Don - look at the chat for discussion
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - the email has been sent as far as I'm concerned.
> If you're not getting it due to yuour spam filter I can't know that
>
> Graeme Bunton:Absolutely, carry on email
>
> Michele Neylon:So yeah - "go away"
>
> Christian Dawson:We should also keep in mind that a hard bounce is sometimes
> a very temporary issue. As a hoster I have 1.4 million domains under my
> control. My customers go over their disk space or don't pay their bills
> aoccasionally and hard bounce for an hour, a day, a week. . They just bounce
> temporarily in a nonmalicious, unintentional way.
>
> Michele Neylon:+1 Christian
>
> Kathy:@Mary and Terri: perhaps a special note to the List that the Chat had
> a lot of important discussion due to problems with the bridge?
>
> Alex Deacon:@christian - you are describing a "soft bounce" (i.e. one that
> may clear up at some point in the future)
>
> Stephanie Perrin:It would take only five minutes to read the chat into the
> transcript.
>
> Holly Raiche:Too hard to hear
>
> Bladel 2:Thanks, Don and appreciate everyone making the effort.
>
> Susan kawaguchi:reading it won't help if you can't hear
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil:We should adjourn so that we don't miss anything
>
> Frank Michlick:no problems hearing via adobe connecgt
>
> Frank Michlick:-g
>
> Holly Raiche:Barely
>
> Christian Dawson:Just goes to show we definitely need definitions and
> explanations.
>
> Kathy:+1 Christian
>
> steve metalitz:@Stephanie, no it is allocating the cost for failure to give
> the provider an e-mail address at which you can be reached.
>
> val sherman:+1 Michele. Yes, Stephanie -- Message received but ignored OR
> message caught by spam filter is not a delivery failure. Delivery failure is
> not the same as failure to respond.
>
> Holly Raiche:I don't think the issue is cost so much as working through what
> is meant by becoming aware - once we have done that, then we can talk about
> cost
>
> Chris Pelling:totally agree
>
> Holly Raiche:The chat is working well
>
> Mary Wong:@Holly, yes that was the idea behind this language, particularly
> following the hard v soft bounce discussion some time ago.
>
> Chris Pelling:cant hear anything
>
> Kathy:I thought we had narrowed the "non-response" issues down to technical
> ones...
>
> Chris Pelling:Is Steve talking ?
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Yes Steve is talking
>
> Kathy:yes Chris
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - agree -
>
> Chris Pelling:ok, well cant hear him here in :(
>
> Chris Pelling:Im listening to adobe connect only now
>
> Holly Raiche:Go to Val's earlier comment -
>
> Christian Dawson:Steve, email is not reliable enough for that to be at all
> practical.
>
> Don Blumenthal:Steve is talking. To summarize, hard bounce = bad address.
> P?P registrant should pay
>
> Mary Wong:Steve is comng across clearly on the audio bridge, other speakers
> not so much. Apologies, all - we are having IT look into this. We've never had
> this problem to Terri's and my knowledge.
>
> Chris Pelling:ok, sorry, disagree
>
> Chris Pelling:for so many reasons, but the main one is not all servers are
> setup to reply with a hard bounce
>
> Chris Pelling:I can hear Don aok
>
> Stephanie Perrin:So we need a volunteer to rewrite this so that it is clear,
> without using the word hard bounce.
>
> Chris Pelling:But Don we might not get ANY response so as far as we know it
> has gone
>
> Chris Pelling:perfect
>
> Kathy:who is talking?
>
> Chris Pelling:I think Christina
>
> Luc Seufer:I think it's Chrisitian
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Stepanie - and Kathy - we need language to agree with wha are
> now technical descriptions of the difficulties is KNOWING if he message has
> reached its desination
>
> Chris Pelling:Christian *
>
> Mary Wong:The idea of conditioning provider notification upon a provider
> actually getting a notice of a bounce was discussed but rejected including for
> reasons that Christian is describing.
>
> Don Blumenthal:To my world? Yeah, I can see why ICANN might be seen as being
> an alien conspiracy.
>
> Kathy:@Holly, agree
>
> Chris Pelling:soft is temorary where a server will try every 4 hours,
> whereas hard bounce is permanent delivery failure
>
> Kathy:@Christian, I think we should use the technical terminology -- and
> define it very clearly as well.
>
> David Cake:That terminology sounds OK.
>
> Kathy:@Don: "timely, affirmative notice of nondelivery"?
>
> David Cake:We should not use hard bounce because that is quite specific to
> email
>
> Holly Raiche:I like Kathy's suggestion
>
> Chris Pelling:might be useful for a read :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounce_message
>
> Stephanie Perrin:How would one define "permanent Non-delivery"
>
> Chris Pelling:I cant
>
> Chris Pelling:cant hear anyone a
>
> Chris Pelling:Don I could hear
>
> Don Blumenthal:Timely affirmative notice of permanent nondelivery?
>
> Frank Michlick:bounces aren't always realtime
>
> Holly Raiche:Thanks Chris - we may need to go to that language
>
> Chris Pelling:define timely
>
> Frank Michlick:some include temporary and multiple delivery attemptsxz
>
> Frank Michlick:-xz
>
> Chris Pelling:Don = loud and clear
>
> Stephanie Perrin:My question is how does my provider know that non-delivery
> is permanent?
>
> Holly Raiche:Maybe we can use the list to define things like bounce and
> timely
>
> Luc Seufer:ICANN definition of timely should be funny
>
> Carlton Samuels:@David: I'm trying to make a distinction between what
> happens when we know a communication did not reach its destination and when
> there is no actionable evidence. The first instance is addressed by the
> language 'when there is an affirmative.....'. With no actionable evidence of
> delivery, then we might have a provision that says what next. My what next is
> that there is a time factor that should be invoked and once that runs out, a
> definite response required by the provider. If the customer is AWOL then
> compel cancellation.
>
> Chris Pelling:Stephanuie, if your server company set the server up correctly
> you SHOULD get a response stating that the message had a permanent delivery
> failure
>
> Kathy:I just can't see it being a permanent liability for proxy/privacy
> providers...
>
> Chris Pelling:but its down to the company that set it up
>
> Luc Seufer:the launch of the new gTLD program was operated in a timely
> manner
>
> Chris Pelling:cant hear anything
>
> Chris Pelling:Luc - its still going :p
>
> Chris Pelling:and what are we up to now, a year ? :p
>
> Don Blumenthal:Luc, applicants might argue that "timely" point. :)
>
> Holly Raiche:@ Mary and Don - try to capture the language that is being
> suggested in the chat
>
> Chris Pelling:no one talking ?
>
> Don Blumenthal:Mary is
>
> Chris Pelling:ok I can hear Don not Mary
>
> Chris Pelling::(
>
> Kathy:Tx Don - great leadership under rought circumstances!
>
> Kathy:Tx All!
>
> steve metalitz:thanks Don
>
> Holly Raiche:Tks
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141208/fff32c45/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Prelim Conclusions for Cat E - 8 Dec 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 114073 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141208/fff32c45/PrelimConclusionsforCatE-8Dec2014-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Notes on Cat G - 8 Dec 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19768 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141208/fff32c45/NotesonCatG-8Dec2014-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141208/fff32c45/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list