[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 11 August 2015 at 1400 UTC

Nathalie Peregrine nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
Tue Aug 11 20:40:45 UTC 2015

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 11 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-11aug15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03Zqpstfl9qbTbnvZTl3fC0eqWuHMOD0BVBHyXdb-2BwvgRfhsQA-3D-3D_QuA5zZR9ZZ7J1F2FeF-2FOsgm1hgIDcBrAX2P7Ezxmql7ckJc4ios1-2BxObAoz2rzLSI3c4QB1NGo7bw7XrBjpRCbz74w4vzk48UxZMFoBBQBQaQ0ePdiOjdJ30sQNHkokOf-2F2p-2FBvMgKvMhzp-2B4u8fP-2BRrSytHe2KCf2HpQmtSbpezMgNTUG57PiORAPesOotpHA-2BC4pSmXJRsVmpbNaLqzpIJDpVP2Uybbte66f7mRifKzSBNnBHzMrxPofHOVD-2F3jyQeWa2WspcSq2lsNGzgZ5uxZOP2scg5ysznoUS0gBCtcHgt2wD2aAXM2R9LG3rZNDHwDL2K12EPuhhkAUTCCzUe38vaJrC69-2F9B-2Bug1Q40zddqC-2BHMA-2B1XGXALTm6vpxAUYIlUjzt0TviFP0KMvVgkw2eDcaw9lF7EnRzz9Xm3frfonq4lIxEfYcpfgXAjUleDQKAixJwypwvdTKaRZ8wxSdbOSe6NImi3aV-2BivNQvHiWFulJqWL2DYqqm0JjRn>

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

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

Holly Raiche ­ ALAC

Steve Metalitz – IPC

James Gannon ­ NCUC

Sarah Wyld – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP

Darcy Southwell – RrSG

Rudi Vansnick – NPOC

James Bladel ­ RrSG

Chris Pelling – RrSG

Susan Kawaguchi – BC

Paul McGrady ­ IPC

David Hughes - IPC

Apologies :

Dick Leaning – Individual

Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Phil Corwin - BC
Don Blumenthal - RySG
Marika Konings -Staff
Amy Bivins - Staff

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Nathalie Peregrine

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

Mailing list archives:

Wiki page:


Thank you.

Kind regards,



 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 11 August 2015

 Nathalie  Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 11th August 2015

  Nathalie  Peregrine:@ Holly, the operator will be dialing out to you shortly
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hey everyone
  Graeme Bunton:We'll get started at 1 or 2 mins after as per usual
  Chris Pelling:Afternoon all
  Holly Raiche:morning all
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the bridge
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the AC room
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Kathy Kleiman and Osvaldo Novoa have joined the AC room
  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late
  Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo and everyone, no worries, Todd is just going through the Sub Team's initial analysis of Annex E.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid has joined the AC roomm
  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies for being late.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the call
  Nathalie  Peregrine:As has Volker Greimann
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I belive we have the drafters on the call. I suggest we ask them rather than guessing.
  Chris Pelling:+1 James
  Mary Wong:One potential issue with that (as noted for the Sub team) is that while the drafters may have a certain meaning in mind, tsome of he 10,042 signatories may have had a different meaning in mind.
  stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy
  steve metalitz:+1 Mary
  Vicky Sheckler:+1 mary
  Nathalie  Peregrine:David Hughes is also on the audio bridge
  Mary Wong:The Sub Team has distinguished between signing the petition and submitting additional comments alongside (see the [x] in the paragraph that discusses the Save Domain Privacy petition.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Sara Bockey has joined the AC room
  Mary Wong:They plan to ask the drafters of the petition for the number that is [x].
  Sara Bockey:apologies for my lateness
  Kathy K:I think James focuses on an area of additional work - the substance of the comments submitted along with the petition.
  James Bladel:200+ comments, while a minority of the campaign signatures,  is still quite a large number, IMO.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think if you look at the media coverage and oped's that were pointing people towards both petitions were clearly advocating against the premise of Annex E. I would seriously disagree on the interpreseation of the comments as supportive of Annex E.
  James Bladel:+1 James.  I think considering these signatures as support of Annex E (as written in the Initial Report) is the larger assumption.
  Mary Wong:Maybe it's not possible to have a single characterization of what the signatories as a group supported or not. Perhaps the WG can consider highlighting/noting that there was a peition signed by 10,042 people that spoke to the issue, but include a further analysis/summary of what the additional comments said more specifically (to the extent they said anything specific, e.g. court order).
  Todd Williams:Got to run, thanks everybody.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wicheevr we look at it we will ahve over 11000 comments in opposition to the basic premise of Ammex E.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wow terrible spelling
  Graeme Bunton:Thanks Todd
  Graeme Bunton:great work on this.
  Holly Raiche:I like James' suggestion that it should be read in light of the use of the term in the RAA
  Darcy Southwell:+1 James G.
  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I think we also have to remember that while these comments are relevant, they were not, as far as I am aware, given in as part of the public comments to the initial report.  I am therefore unsure how much time we should spend on them in relation to the report due to time contraints.
  Vicky Sheckler:+1 steve
  Holly Raiche:Both a court order and Ssubpoena a least require a court/justice - i.e., a third, judicial person, to make a decision on what should or should not be done
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think we are treating our commenters as experienced laywers who have extensive experience in legal terminology and application of legal phrasing. They are not.
  Kathy K:Mission accepted, Graeme
  val sherman:To my knowledge, these meanings of verifiable vs verified are common
  steve metalitz:Agree that the subteam has done an excellent job in teeing up thse issues.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Well I certaintly wouldnt have made the distinction that is being made here. Mybe its a US commonality.
  val sherman:But we cannot say that those petitioned didn't understand the difference; rather, we should assume that they did.
  Kathy K:Adding to Steve: complaints before a court are subject to rules, including sanctions for misrepresentation. It's a high bar. We have no such enforcement mechanisms here
  steve metalitz:@James good point about minimum/maximum standards.  One reason why rule barring disclosure without court order would be extremely difficult to maintain.
  Mary Wong:@James, I'm not American and would say I've understood the distinction since before moving to the US (note that this does NOT mean I/staff support any one or other suggested approach being discussed).
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Termination is different to disclusure/prublication... termination does not require the details to be published, uness Im misunderstanding
  stephanie Perrin:Good point James G
  stephanie Perrin:However something does have to go in the whois
  James Bladel:"Non-automated comments"?
  Volker A. Greimann:if that is your interpretation of what they say, maybe the best solution is to scrap this projet
  Volker A. Greimann:project
  Volker A. Greimann:(i am not advocating that, just noting it as a possible result)
  James Bladel:To my knowledge, none of the comments received were automated.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:What automated comments?
  Frank Michlick:"automated comments"?
  Frank Michlick:every comment was submitted by a person that initiated that process.
  James Bladel:Please explain "automated comments"
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:If we are going down this route and approach then should we read the comments as not supporting an accreditation regime at all then.
  Mary Wong:@James, a couple of comments addressed this point specifically but a number offered suggestions based on the assumption that there would be such a program. Having read most of the comments, I'm honestly not sure how that would help.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Maybe its a point we should take to "No comment left behind" a
  James Bladel:@Stephanie - Your comment aligns with the other text on the SDP campaign site.
  Vicky Sheckler:stephanie - under every p/p terms of service that i've read, part of the deal is that you don't use the domain for unlawful purposes
  James Bladel:@Vicky - correct.  Nothing in the SDP campaign indicated that p/p providers would harbor or tolerate criminal activity.
  stephanie Perrin:I understand that Vicky, but that does not mean anyone can allege illegal activity and find out who you aer.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes and the rightfu definer of hat is unlawful is the courts and LEO.
  Vicky Sheckler:taking a "but for" approach to responsibility in an interconnected world is problematic and undermines the sytem
  steve metalitz:@Kathy, this is a different cost recovery process from the one addressed by subteam on 1.3.2
  steve metalitz:One is for relay, one is for disclose
  Kathy K:Right!
  stephanie Perrin:Yes on more time, I have not got through all the comments yet, dont know about everyone else...
  James Bladel:Excluding lawers/law firms from this framework opens up a huge loophole, IMO.  Concerned that good guy P/P providers would have to compete against providers hiding behind this exclusion.
  Chris Pelling:I beleive this is then unfair
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think that might exclude some regisrtars no?
  Chris Pelling:if the "service" is being offered, it is being offered by a level playing field
  stephanie Perrin:I dont understand how this addresses the cybercrime problem....it merely means organized criminals act through lawyers who set up firms specializing in proxy services.
  James Bladel:Looked at the clock and lowered my hand. :)
  Frank Michlick:But how do you enforce including lawyers in this? I think they should fall under this, but that would mean a change of the standard registration agreement forbidding lawyers to use their information for their clients unless they are awhois privacy/proxy provider accreddited with ICANN.
  steve metalitz:+1Kathy, this is an "issue spotting" phase, not for detailed discussion now.
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes I would see that as a very complex issue.
  stephanie Perrin:That sounds doable Frank....
  stephanie Perrin:We already did put the lawyer issue aside...
  Mary Wong:@Steve, yes - it would be really helpful if WG members can issue-spot.
  Kathy K:Lawyers and others (registered agent services) who might be providing extensive proxy/privacy services
  steve metalitz:@Let's spot the issues in 2-9 on list please!
  Frank Michlick:It was just brought up before... Most recently similar whois I noticed was Google's/Alphabet's abc.xyz - should DNSstitation in whois.
  James Bladel:Eastern Daylight. :)
  Frank Michlick:(it was brought up in the call)
  Frank Michlick:thanks everyone
  Mary Wong:Please send your issues to the llst. IT will help us keep track.
  James Bladel:Thanks, Graeme & team.
  Chris Pelling:thanks#
  Osvaldo Novoa:Thank and By
  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:thanks all
  Kathy K:Tx Graeme, tx all!
  Rudi Vansnick:bye
  Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks all
  val sherman:thanks all

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150811/ccf1763b/attachment-0001.html>

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