<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color: #000000;font-size: 12pt;">
<div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma;">
<div style="font-family: Tahoma;">
<div style="font-family: Tahoma;">
<div style="font-family: Tahoma;">
<div style="font-family: Tahoma;">
<div align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: justify;"><br>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: justify;"><font size="3">Thanks Mary for distributing these. The draft <font>language on Relay f</font>rom the October 10th session is a good starting point. </font></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: justify;"><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: justify;"><font size="3">Although we reserve comment on the attached preliminary conclusions for </font><font size="3">tomorrow</font><font size="3">'s discussion, </font><font size="3">here
are two </font><font size="3">brief points for consideration:</font></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">First, and more generally, occurrences of "should" should be converted to "must" so that they are obligatory (e.g., "A P/P service provider </font><font size="3"><b><u>must</u></b></font><font size="3"> notify the
requestor upon becoming aware that delivery of the original form of electronic communication has failed.)</font></div>
<font size="3" style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</font>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">Second,</font><font size="3"> the second bullet under the Relay category </font><font size="3">appears to address scenarios where a number of delivery failures occur within a specified time</font><font size="3"> period</font><font size="3">. </font><font size="3">A
Customer is required by the terms of the Provider/Customer agreement to provide an accurate e-mail address where he/she can be contacted. Certainly we can all agree that</font><font size="3"> </font><font size="3">the Customer's</font><font size="3"> </font><font size="3"> failure
to do so cannot be attributed to a third-party. The Customer is in the best position to know</font><font size="3"> </font><font size="3">his or her </font><font size="3">contact information and to notify the Provider if there were any changes to it. The Customer
also is or must be responsible for ensuring that he/she is contactable at the email address he/she provided. So costs to attempt to reach the Customer via a "further form of notice" due to </font><font size="3">repeated</font><font size="3"> d</font>elivery
failure should not be attributed to a Requestor, but to the Customer. The provision should therefore specify that any reasonable fee accrued by the Provider as a result of having to use an alternative method to contact the Customer in the event of a persistent
delivery failure is to be borne by the Customer. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><font size="3">Additionally, i</font><font size="3">t is our understanding that a failure of the Customer to provide the Provider an accurate e-mail address would violate the terms of the Provider/Customer agreement, </font><font size="3">which
is a ground for the Provider to terminate the Service.</font><font size="3"> In the alternative</font><font size="3"> to </font><font size="3">passing the "further form of notice" fee on to the Customer,</font><font size="3"> the Provider could exercise the
option</font> to terminate the Service.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">Just some initial thoughts. Looking forward to hearing your views.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">Best,</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Val</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font size="3">Valeriya Sherman </font><font size="3"><br>
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.</font><font size="3"><br>
1101 30th Street, N.W.</font><font size="3"><br>
Suite 120</font><font size="3"><br>
Washington, D.C. 20007</font><font size="3"><br>
Tel 202.944.3300</font><font size="3"><br>
Cell 303.589.7477</font><font size="3"><br>
</font><a href="mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu" target="_blank"><font size="3" color="#1155CC">vsherman@sgbdc.com</font></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF701697" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Mary Wong [mary.wong@icann.org]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 24, 2014 2:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed agenda and documents for WG call on 28 October<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>Dear WG members,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We hope that those of you who were able to attend the ICANN meeting in person in Los Angeles enjoyed safe and pleasant journeys home, and that everyone has had a chance to recover from the intensity of the meetings!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is the proposed agenda for our next WG meeting on Tuesday 28 October, as well as related documentation for your review prior to the meeting:</div>
<ol>
<li>Roll Call/Updates to SOI</li><li>Review updated Work Plan (see attached document)</li><li>Recap/review of the WG F2F facilitated session on 10 October (recordings and transcripts posted to the WG wiki at <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/AiHxAg" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/AiHxAg</a>) </li><li>Continue deliberations on draft language from the 10 October session (see attached document)</li><li>Continue deliberations on Disclosure and Category F (see attached markup comparing the proposal from Steve Metalitz/IPC members with amendments proposed by Volker Greimann)</li><li>Next steps</li></ol>
<div>For your convenience, also attached is a Tabular Comparison document summarizing where WG discussions stand, by comparing the current situation with unaccredited providers to what might change if the WG’s various preliminary conclusions are adopted.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As is the usual practice, the agenda and documents will also be posted to the WG wiki. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks and cheers</div>
<div>Mary</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<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><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>