<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</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>Kathy,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for all of the work in this document. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of “alleged” is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage
arose with respect to named defendants. I don’t think it’s necessary here. I’m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More fundamentally, we wouldn’t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are
tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Don</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>Kathryn Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>PPSAI <<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>
<div>
<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>
</span>
</body>
</html>