[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thu May 22 15:32:44 UTC 2014

To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all
(or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?

J.

On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:

>I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do
>not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual
>SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember
>that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of
>where you fall on the issue.
>
>K
>
>Kiran Malancharuvil
>Internet Policy Counselor
>MarkMonitor
>415-419-9138 (m)
>
>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
>On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven"
><met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>
>Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
>
>Could you clarify one point:
>
>³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C,
>disagreedŠ.²  Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
>
>Steve
>
>From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney at fwdstrategies.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM
>To: Marika Konings
>Cc: Metalitz, Steven;
>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>
>All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the
>language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the
>request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template
>submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l,
>LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your
>comments and further discussion if needed.
>
>Thanks,
>Libby
>
>www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
>
>
>On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings
><marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated
>templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if
>I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing
>list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
>
>  1.  Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C
>threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested
>removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other
>proposed edits?
>  2.  Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of
>the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed
>for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
>  3.  Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it
>would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact
>information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P
>customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on
>what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses
>are also encouraged.
>  4.  Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on
>issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and
>possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
>Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
>To: Marika Konings
><marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>,
>"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>
>Thanks to all participants on today¹s call.  Following up on requests
>made on the call ----
>
>Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold),
>C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!)
>proposed edits.  Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.
>
>Regarding question C.3:  If the following applies to you, please respond
>on the list:
>
>IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial
>entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in
>the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p
>registrations by natural persons)?  If the answer is YES, please specify
>the differences.
>
>For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES
>people will step forward on the list.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Steve Metalitz, vice chair
>
>
>
>From: 
>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann
>.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika
>Konings
>Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
>To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
>
>Dear All,
>
>Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>Proposed Agenda  PPSAI WG Meeting  20 May 2014
>
>  1.  Roll Call / SOI
>  2.  Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1
>and C2 (as circulated by Don)
>  3.  Review C3  is additional response/discussion needed in light of
>item 2? (see template attached)
>  4.  Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
>  5.  Next steps / confirm next meeting
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>--
>Libby Baney, JD
>President
>FWD Strategies International
>www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com>
>P: 202-499-2296
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg