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

[Tim Ruiz]

I'll go out on a limb here with a "personal" viewpoint. IMHO, since we have all posted SOIs it should be the Chair's call (perhaps with help from Staff) to determine consensus. What we need to do is voice our opinions as WG members. If the Chair determines that there are a 100 WG members with the same affiliation he/she should take that into account. Remember, this is not the GNSO Council, it is a GNSO WG. They are very different entities with very different methods of making decisions.

Tim


On May 22, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:

Kiran, I agree with your second sentence. I don't agree with the first because (a) in fact WG participants are not always representing the constituency or other group with which they identify and (b) as others have pointed out, there is only a very limited role for voting in WGs.

But getting back to the text that you and others proposed:

Could the proponents of the text identify the SG AC or C which they are representing in disagreeing with the position that use of p/p registrations for commercial activities should not be prohibited in accreditation standards?

Steve



Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kiran Malancharuvil [Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 08:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: Libby Baney; Marika Konings; 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


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><mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:

Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.

Could you clarify one point:

“However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, disagreed….”  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><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><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><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><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><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thanks to all participants on today’s call.  Following up on requests made on the call ----

Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!) proposed edits.  Don’s 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> [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><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><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><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><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<mailto: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/20140522/ab1646e3/attachment.html>