[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 18 August

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Aug 17 23:07:32 UTC 2015


I will be an apology for both tonight’s call and the call following for Group 3.

On 18 Aug 2015, at 2:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear WG members,
> The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 18 August, is as follows:
> Roll call/updates to SOI
> Consideration of issues arising from Part 1 of the WG Public Comments Review Tool dated 20 July (see emails from Steve and me below for the issues to be noted)
> Consideration of issues arising from Part 2 of the WG Public Comments Review Tool dated 7 August (sent to WG on 9 August, attached again for easy reference)
> Status report from Sub Team 4 on Additional Topics (co-convenors: Kathy Kleiman & Paul McGrady)
> Next steps
> Please note that for Agenda Item #3, the suggested approach is the same as what we adopted for Part 1 of the Review Tool, i.e. to spot issues for further consideration by the WG. To that end, it will be helpful if WG members are able to individually go through the attached Tool before tomorrow, so that you can raise those issues as Steve (who will be chairing this week) goes through the document on the call.
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> Date: Friday, August 14, 2015 at 17:50
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary	recommendations
>> Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
>> 3.            Response to Question 3:   Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration?  (Comments 18, 25, 31)
>> 4.            Response to Question 8:  Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law?  (Comments 17, 29)  (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
>> 5.            Response to Question 8:  Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited?  (Comments 24, 31)
>> In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized  below (“law enforcement authority” definition):  since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?    
>> Steve Metalitz
>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM
>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
>> Dear WG members,
>> As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG. 
>> From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
>> Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering;
>> The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
>> Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
>> Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Mary
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> <Public Comment Review Tool - v1 Pt 2 - 7 August.docx>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> 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/20150818/c5728520/attachment.html>

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