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

Thu May 22 16:36:03 UTC 2014

You are incorrect Tim. Other SO and AC's are ALWAYS welcome to provide input in ANY GNSO working group.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil 
Internet Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m) 

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. 

> On May 22, 2014, at 9:29 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Exactly our point.  I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. 
>> 
>> K
>> 
>> Kiran Malancharuvil 
>> Internet Policy Counselor
>> MarkMonitor
>> 415-419-9138 (m) 
>> 
>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. 
>> 
>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg