[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux

[Mary Wong]

Dear WG members,

We thought it might be helpful to circulate the following background
information for the benefit of those WG members who may not have been
following the deliberations of the GNSO Council leading up to the approval
of this PDP, WG and Charter. The staff paper summarizing the issues
remaining for a PDP after the conclusion of negotiations between the
Registrars SG and ICANN on the new 2013 RAA was submitted to the GNSO
Council for review and comments on 17 September 2013. A draft charter for a
WG to carry out the proposed PDP was then circulated on 10 October 2013
containing questions which were derived from the staff paper for input and
feedback from GNSO Councilors, SGs and Constituencies. Based on comments
from various Council members, the Charter questions were revised and
updated, following which the GNSO Council adopted the final Charter
(including the revised Charter questions) at its meeting on 31 October 2013.

As such, we thought that soliciting SG, Constituency, SO and AC feedback on
the Charter questions as approved sooner rather than later in the WG process
would be of assistance to the WG.

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

* One World. One Internet. *

From:  Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date:  Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:30 PM
To:  "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux

> Hi All,
> I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the
> invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the
> SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday.
> 
> As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the
> background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open
> issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those
> still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the
> writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use
> consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine.
> 
> But is that be our goal?  Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use
> consistent terminology?  In brief:
> - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's
> "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right?
> - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy
> system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p
> privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask?
> 
> So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We
> tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note
> jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again
> on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation.
> 
> In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for
> a bit more editing here :-).
> All the best,
> Kathy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140113/7e3248b2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140113/7e3248b2/smime.p7s>