<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div>Dear WG members,</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size: medium; ">We thought it might be helpful to circulate the following background information for the benefit of those WG members who may not have been following the deliberations of the GNSO Council leading up to the approval of this PDP, WG and Charter. The staff paper summarizing the issues remaining for a PDP after the conclusion of negotiations between the Registrars SG and ICANN on the new 2013 RAA was submitted to the GNSO Council for review and comments on 17 September 2013. A draft charter for a WG to carry out the proposed PDP was then circulated on 10 October 2013 containing questions which were derived from the staff paper for input and feedback from GNSO Councilors, SGs and Constituencies. Based on comments from various Council members, the Charter questions were revised and updated, following which the GNSO Council adopted the final Charter (including the revised Charter questions) at its meeting on 31 October 2013.</span></div><div style="font-size: medium; "><br></div><div style="font-size: medium; ">As such, we thought that soliciting SG, Constituency, SO and AC feedback on the Charter questions as approved sooner rather than later in the WG process would be of assistance to the WG.</div><div style="font-size: medium; "><br></div><div style="font-size: medium; ">Thanks and cheers</div><div style="font-size: medium; ">Mary</div></div><div style="font-size: medium; "><br></div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Mary Wong</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Senior Policy Director</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Telephone: +1 603 574 4892</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Email: mary.wong@icann.org</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><br></font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">* One World. One Internet. *</font></font></div></div></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:30 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi All,<br>
I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday.
<br><br>
As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy
system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine.
<br><br><i>But is that be our goal? </i>Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief:
<br>
- Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right?
<br>
- There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask?
<br><br>
So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can
put together a compilation.<br><br>
In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-).<br>
All the best,<br>
Kathy<br></div></div></blockquote></span></body></html>