[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 04 August 2015 at 1400 UTC

Terri Agnew terri.agnew at icann.org
Tue Aug 4 17:44:21 UTC 2015

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 04 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-04aug15-en.mp3

On page:


The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:



Graeme Bunton ­ RrSG
Val Sherman ­ IPC

Kathy Kleiman ­ NCSG

Stephanie Perrin ­ NCSG

Phil Corwin ­ BC

Terri Stumme ­ BC

Todd Williams ­ IPC

Vicky Sheckler ­ IPC

Volker Greimann - RrSG
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid ­ RrSG
Griffin Barnett- IPC
David Cake - NCSG
Sara Bockey ­ RrSG
Don Blumenthal ­ RySG
Roger Carney - RrSG
Frank Michlick ­ Individual
Michele Neylon ­ RrSG

Holly Raiche ­ ALAC

Steve Metalitz - IPC

James Gannon ­ NCUC

Sarah Wyld - RrSG
David Heasley - IPC
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP

Darcy Southwell - RrSG

Rudi Vansnick - NPOC
Luc Seufer - RrSG

Carlton Samuels - ALAC

Chris Pelling - RrSG

Susan Kawaguchi - BC

Apologies :

Alex Deacon ­IPC
Susan Prosser - RrSG

James Bladel ­ RrSG
Dick Leaning - Individual

Paul McGrady ­ IPC
Kiran Malancharuvil- IPC
Marika Konings -Staff

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Amy Bivins

Terri Agnew

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives:

Wiki page:


Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri Agnew


 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 04 August 2015

      Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 4th August 2015

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello allç

  Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo, hello everybody

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Vicky Sheckler

  Terri Agnew:Finding line

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Lindsay Hamilton-Reid

  Mary Wong:The agenda is in the right hand pod

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Phil Corwin

  Graeme Bunton:it's there, need to scroll that pane up

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Rudi Vansnick

  Stephanie Perrin:did we lose sound or is noone talkng?

  Mary Wong:Audio is on, Stephanie

  Michele Neylon:sound working fine here

  Terri Agnew:Welcome James Gannon

  Kathy K:Hi All

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Kathy Kleiman

  Kathy K:I think Subteam 2 is still pretty new...

  Kathy K:I appreciate the summary, but there is so much more to do!!

  Michele Neylon:Oddly enough that's the question I would have asked

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer

  Terri Agnew:Welcome David Cake

  James Gannon (Listen Only):Good methodology Lindsay very clear and easy to get a feel for the comments

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels

  Carlton Samuels:Howdy all. My apologies for the late boarding

  James Gannon (Listen Only):I think Kathys point is that the SDP commenters should be relevent to 1.3.3

  Vicky Sheckler:isn't that the reason we have the subgroup 4?

  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Thanks James.

  Graeme Bunton:SDP comments are NOT templated

  Graeme Bunton:There was no prepopulated text, and text was optional

  Kathy K:New hand, Steve, response to Mary

  Mary Wong:@Graeme, apologies - as I mentioned, we also did not include "petition based" submissions.

  Mary Wong:As noted, we were not certain that should be a staff decision to include or not.

  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:We should look at all comments in relation to the questions.  It may mean extending all the timescales.

  Carlton Samuels:@Holly: The "Nos" have it!

  Vicky Sheckler:+1 w/ steve metalitz' comments

  Carlton Samuels:@Steve: I agree its not a 'plebiscite'.  But I'm thinking  since we asked the question, the responses should be seen at least as 'the sense of the room'.

  Don Blumenthal:Please go on mute if you are not speaking.

  Volker A. Greimann:I object to the comment or characterization of any comments as machine-generated.

  Michele Neylon:audio is not very clear

  Volker A. Greimann:On knowledge and belief, every comment and signature was made by a live human

  Mary Wong:Just to clarify - staff did not mean to exclude anyone; we just did not believe we should decide on what to do with petition and template-based submissions. We are happy to add/include if that is what the WG decides.

  Vicky Sheckler:i object to how the document that solicited the comments was misledaing the failure of this group to address this.

  David Cake:I strongly agree with Michele

  Carlton Samuels:@Michele +1.

  Sara Bockey:+1 Michele

  Frank Michlick:Michele +1

  Volker A. Greimann:"misleading the the failure of this group to address this"? What does that mean, Vicky?

  Luc Seufer:Exactly. Disregarding the voice of those users would go against the spirit of ICANN PDP

  Frank Michlick:If you consider any of the comments machine generated you better be able to back up that claim.

  David Cake:Of course they are not machine generated etc. Every single one of those signatures was (as far as we know) a real, genuine person.

  Vicky Sheckler:please see the COA comments about problems with how the petition comments were generated

  Volker A. Greimann:how is reaching out to the users of these services different from the usual campaigns to flood the comments with identical form letters by the IP?

  Terri Agnew:@James, we are unable to hear you. Let me know if a dial out is needed.

  Volker A. Greimann:they were not generated, Vicky, they were submitted

  James Gannon:go ahead

  James Gannon:mic problems

  Michele Neylon:Kathy - you might be too close to your mic

  Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1 ICANN remains challenged to reach end users. As a standing member of the At-Large I am very familiar with the challenges in this area

  Vicky Sheckler:Volker - please read the COA comments.  misleading the public to obtain comments is a concern that we need to consider.

  Graeme Bunton:Breaking up a bit James

  Frank Michlick:audio is cuting out

  Carlton Samuels:James is breaking up in my ear

  Volker A. Greimann:Just because you do not agree with the points made does not make them misleading

  Vicky Sheckler:the fact that the peittion did not accurately explain the document does make it misleading. please read the COA  comments for a full discretion of the problems.

  Mary Wong:@James, it will now be for each Sub Team to decide how /where to add the relevant comments.

  Sara Bockey:+1 James G

  James Gannon:Sorry for bad audio

  Kathy K:old hand

  Carlton Samuels:@James: Yes, there should be space to address and analyze themes that are not related to specific questions.  The comments must be embraced and analyzed.

  Volker A. Greimann:the petition linked to the report very clearly. summarizing all of it was necessry

  Vicky Sheckler:+1 val

  Volker A. Greimann:have you read the report? it is very long!

  Luc Seufer:The provider campaign was public, could we see the material presented to IP holders by IPC members and also be provided with proof that they all read the report?

  James Gannon:We dont double guess the primary sources for other commenters opinoins, I do not agree with us doing it in this case.

  val sherman:Yes i have Volker. Several times.

  Kathy K:Tx Val! @Mary, can we include the petition and template now?

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, each Sub Team can add as they decide.

  Volker A. Greimann:val, do you expect every commenter to do so?

  Kathy K:@Mary, when staff leaves these comments out of the template they are very easy to overlook

  Vicky Sheckler:+1 todd

Volker A. Greimann:not everyone who is invested in his privacy has the time (or is paid for his time) to read all that

  val sherman:I hope that commenters have access to a fair representation of the contents of the report when commenting on its substance

  David Cake:Strongly expressed opinions should be respected.

  Vicky Sheckler:which makes it incumbent upon us in the workign group to not mislead ppl when / if we solicit comments from others

  James Gannon:To a point I agree Todd, my primary issue with my interevention was our making classifications of commenters. Our analysis of each comment will then give us that weighting to each comment depending on its substance.

  Holly Raiche:I think it is important to at least note the number of comments made against the relevant points of the report - and agree with Wolker  and Stephannie - not everyone is familiar with - or has the time tobe familiar with - the report.  But they do have legitimate concerns that should be taken into account

  Volker A. Greimann:I do not see pointing out potential consequenses as misleading

  David Cake:We should not be finding reasons to downgrade public comments.

  Sara Bockey:I don't think it's a fair assumption that if someone signs a petition they are not informed and somehow their voice is of less value.

  James Gannon:+1 Sara, we solicit Public Comment, lets not fail here when we recive a public response

  David Cake:And comments not appreciating the level of balance is not a reason to ignore them. If there are many comments indicating that the balance we ahve strick is inappropriate, that is a reason to reassess our balance, not dismiss comments.

  val sherman:old

  val sherman:sorry!

  Luc Seufer:SDP website points to the report https://www.savedomainprivacy.org/what-can-you-do-how-can-you-get-involved/ I don't see how it is misleading

  Kathy K:@Mary, in that case can we include them now??

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, as mentioned, each Sub Team can add according to their methodology.

  Michele Neylon:+1 Stephanie

  Sara Bockey:+1 Stephanie

  Volker A. Greimann:in the end, we cannot judge on how the comments came about. For all we know everyone could have read the report, or enough of it.

  James Gannon:+1 Stephanie

  Volker A. Greimann:A comment is a comment, like it or not

  Michele Neylon:The bias argument is nutty

  Michele Neylon:Sorry, but we all have opinions and interests

  Luc Seufer:IMO a comment is by definition biased

  Kathy K:@Mary, it's not a subteam issue, its a fair reporting issue. These comments belong in the template. It's the choice of the subteam on how to weight and report these comments, but not the subteam view on how to include them in the first place

  Michele Neylon:I don't see how any of us could present a topic we have an opinion about in a neutral fashion

  Don Blumenthal:FWIW, a more balanced piece from Mark Jeftovic at OpenDNShttp://www.circleid.com/posts/20150703_confessions_of_an_ex_opponent_of_whois_privacy/

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, how would you like staff to address this?

  val sherman:We are not talking about the comments being biased; the campaigns were biased, one-sided and imo, misleading.

  Volker A. Greimann:that was a good article

  Volker A. Greimann:I think it is part of the comments too

  Mary Wong:@Volker, yes - he submitted it as a public comment.

  Volker A. Greimann:it was submitted in some form

  Volker A. Greimann:thanks Mary

  James Gannon:Great points Phil.

  Holly Raiche:@ Phil +1

  Kathy K:@Mary, tx for asking. As you added Turner Broadcasting, I would add another line to 1.3.3, question 1, after 86 to list the Save Domain Privact comment -- what they said and how they said it.

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, thanks for clarifying. My reason for asking is what @Lindsay is raising - depending on how the Sub Teams want to handle these comemnts, it could be a lot of work requiring additional volunteers.

  Volker A. Greimann:"other mass comments" is better...

  Kathy K:+1 Steve - I agree that #1 answers resolve this issue

  James Gannon:I think we still need to add them to the analysis process, just as a matter of correct process for analysis, we have the eyes of the world on this lets make sure that we do this right.

  Holly Raiche:@ Volker - instead of 'mass' what about a number of similar comments made

  Holly Raiche:Clarigy - put the number of comments made aginst each comment

  Volker A. Greimann:BTW, I am eworking on a alternate proposal to an accreditation and hope to have a draft by next week

  Volker A. Greimann:no guarantees though

  James Gannon:A number of us have had conflcts during this week so I think the worlk will kick off next week for SubTeam 4

  Stephanie Perrin:+1 James G

  Kathy K:Tx Holly

  Volker A. Greimann:holly, I said better, not good ;-)

  Kathy K:I don't think we have reviewed this Steve

  Kathy K:As the subteams are so busy...

  James Gannon:I think the WG responses will be essentially coming out of the findings of the subteams in many ways

  Mary Wong:@James, we have 20 prelim recommendations and only some are being dealt with by the Sub Teams, who are largely focusing on the open questions.

  Holly Raiche:I'd be happy to attend if it is called

  Sara Bockey:(yes) = yes if needed

  Stephanie Perrin:We are being asked by ICANN travel to commit by Monday, so it would be good to have a decision.

  Kathy K:Is it needed?

  Philip Corwin:I also checked (yes) by which I meant open to attending if that was group consensus, and not strongly opposed

  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Agreed Phil

  Holly Raiche:Yes, ICANN wants travel decisions for us by Monday

  Stephanie Perrin:My comment is that there was such a groundswell of public comment that we may owe it to our public to have a decent meeting at Dublin

  Kathy K:But this F2F meeting is not our public meeting, in Dublin, right?

  Chris Pelling:I also agree a meeting in dublin would be good

  James Gannon:Correct Kathy

  Chris Pelling:F2F certainly

  Michele Neylon:they're two different things

  Michele Neylon:F 2 F = group only

  Sara Bockey:I agree with James' point.  I think it will likely be needed

  Kathy K:One occurs early and the other occurs in the formal meeting schedule

  Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - yes - separate from the public one

  Mary Wong:@Michele, yes, correct

  Carlton Samuels:  I will have to be remote for a f2f. I can't be there unless funded

  Stephanie Perrin:Yes but the Friday meeting would be open to those who wish to show up, correct?

  Philip Corwin:F2F might be good preparation for what could be a contentious public meeting a few days later

  Holly Raiche:ICANN needs a gravel decision by next Monday

  Chris Pelling:Friday before I would not be able to make. As travelling to Dublin that day

  Graeme Bunton:Staff would LOVE us to decide ASAP

  James Gannon:=)

  Stephanie Perrin:I think we should decide today, otherwise those of us who cannot attend without funding, will not be there

  Chris Pelling:I would not be able to make it then

  Sara Bockey:Noon would be better

  James Gannon:I would offer the suggestion that we go ahead with planning this personally due to the due dates for travel confirmations

  Sara Bockey:unlesss you don't want me to shower... after long flight

  Stephanie Perrin:Monday Mary

  Rudi Vansnick:i have to leave for another call starting in about 2 minutes, I will be in Dublin on Friday 16th so no issue if attending the meeting is required

  Holly Raiche:Agree - the earlier the beter, but please, a decision ASAP

  Stephanie Perrin:Some of us are awfully cranky after an all night flight sitting bolt upright in economy

  Chris Pelling:Im off for another call - thanks guys

  Sara Bockey:I'm off to another call as well.  thank you all.

  Holly Raiche:PLEASE - a decision on the F at F

  Don Blumenthal:Question. What's the value of F2F if we do only part of  day?

  Stephanie Perrin:+1 Holly

  Mary Wong:@Don, the idea was 11 a.m. to 6 or 6.30 p.m.

  Kathy K:I still don't know what the F2F is for... what issues will still be open?

  Mary Wong:As several people said they're coming in overnight

  Graeme Bunton:That's my impression, Steve

  Stephanie Perrin:@Kathy all of them at the rate we are going....

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, it may change but the Work Plan envisages certain topics for discussion

  Kathy K:Tx Steve!

  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Thanks all.

  Philip Corwin:Bye all

  val sherman:Thanks Steve, thanks all!

  Carlton Samuels:Thanks all

  James Gannon:thanks all

  Graeme Bunton:thanks all

  Michele Neylon:bye

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150804/ca6192ec/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list