[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up actions from the call yesterday

Thu Jan 9 05:08:37 UTC 2014

Hi Mary,

I don't have an objection to sending out your clean version in the
interests of time (with one small exception below). Since the objective of
the document is to elicit information, I think that the existing questions
adequately identify some of the issues and seek viewpoints.

However, I would agree with Kathy that defining "specific purpose" is
necessary, because I don't think a typical reader will understand the
existing language. (I didn't.) But I think this is a minor edit. Would it
be accurate and unobjectionable to modify that sentence to read:

   - Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to
   reveal customer identities in response to cease-and-desist letters?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what you explained that
"specific purpose" means in this context.

As to definitions of p/p provider and relay/reveal, I would agree that it
would be preferable to define those if possible, but I think that those
terms may be more intuitive, comparatively. (?) On other topics, I do think
that there are some questions for which it would be useful to know the
community's viewpoint, but I think it's fine to carve those out separately
and continue discussion about how to best broach those issues as a group.

Thanks,

John Horton
President, LegitScript

*Follow LegitScript*:
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>
|  Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>  |
Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript>
|  YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript>  |  *Blog
<http://blog.legitscript.com>*  |
Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Luc SEUFER <lseufer at dclgroup.eu> wrote:

> Hi Mary et alia,
>
> Here attached are my comments on the proposed input template. As Kathy
> pointed out I believe some terms would benefit from being more clearly
> defined, but I also trust we should trim this questionnaire if we want it
> to be answered to.
> Furthermore, asking the other constituencies if a third party (the pp
> provider) should disregard their local laws seems a tad odd to me. Either
> there is a bi or multilateral convention between the country where the
> illegal activity was conducted and the one of the service provider or there
> isn’t. Our industry may be self-regulated (or at least it like to think it
> is) but the fact remains that each country is sovereign on its territory.
>
> This is again a case of national law vs contractual terms and the latter
> can’t supersede the former. IMHO we should take that fact in account or we
> will end up with a pp accreditation program that the majority of providers
> can’t abide by/ or that can’t be legally enforceable, just like the 2013
> RAA.
>
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Luc
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 15:53, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:
> mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> As discussed on the call yesterday, here are two action items for your
> review.
>
> (1) The first concerns finalizing the letters to be sent to the SO/AC
> Chairs, and the SG/Constituency Input Template to be sent to SG/Cs.
> Attached please find a CLEAN version of both the SO/AC invitation letters
> and the SG/C template for input that we are requesting from individual
> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SG/Cs).
>
> Please note that these are the same versions as were discussed during the
> meeting earlier today, i.e. reflecting WG Chair Don Blumenthal's edits as
> of 18 December 2013. This is because the more recent suggestions made by
> Kathy, Gema and John (and for which a good discussion is ongoing onlist) go
> largely toward proposed substantive modification of the original Charter
> questions. The only change that has been made is the addition of a sentence
> to the SO/AC letter, at WG Vice Chair Steve Metalitz's suggestion, that
> reflects some of that ongoing discussion.
>
> We suggest that for those types of substantive edits, staff compile the
> suggestions into a separate document that the WG can review at a subsequent
> meeting, for two reasons. First, the GNSO PDP Manual specifies that SG/C
> input should be sought at an "early stage" in the PDP, and that SG/Cs have
> 35 days to respond to a formal solicitation for input. Assuming the letters
> and template go out at the end of this week or early next, the due date for
> feedback will be mid-February such that the WG will likely only be
> reviewing the feedback six weeks from now at the earliest. Secondly, the
> SG/C input template as drafted and with Don's edits reproduces the actual
> Charter questions – and any substantive modification of these should first
> be discussed by the WG prior to circulation, since they may constitute
> additional issues for which the WG may need to go back to the Council.
>
> (2) The second action item concerns Steve's proposal that the WG request
> that ICANN staff ask those registrars subject to the 2013 Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement (RAA) to provide links to information that is
> either published on their website, or on that of their privacy or proxy
> service, relating to the terms and conditions of those services and a
> "description of procedures" employed by the service in question for a
> number of functions, including receipt of complaints of abuse, relay and
> reveal policies, conditions for termination of service, and customer
> support. Although some of this information is also being sought by the
> EWG's proposed questionnaire, having the links provided to this WG may be
> helpful in addition to the aggregated responses that the EWG plans to
> prepare to share with the group.
>
> Please feel free to provide suggestions and revisions to the letter and
> template to the list, and to indicate whether or not you support Steve's
> suggestion (or not).
>
> 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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>
> * One World. One Internet. *
> <CLEAN PPSAI - SO AC input - 8 Jan 2014.doc><CLEAN PPSAI - SG - C Input
> Template - 18 December 2013 -
> dmb[1].doc>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
> have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose
> its contents to anyone.
>
> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need
> to.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140108/ccd8575e/attachment.html>