[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call

Tue Aug 22 20:31:11 UTC 2017

Steve,

Your comments are never too late in my opinion, and that goes for 
everyone on this IRT.

We are the IRT, and we have to deal with the reality that we are dealing 
with moving targets.

It is what is, and in my opinion, if you have comments that are valuable 
to our work, just add them. We all are all trying to achieve the best of 
best here right? So no problem.

Thanks,

Theo Geurts

On 22-8-2017 20:07, Amy Bivins wrote:
>
> Thanks so much, Steve,
>
> I’ve added this feedback to the tracker.
>
> *From:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Metalitz, Steven
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:54 AM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call
>
> Amy and colleagues, ,
>
> A couple of small comments in line below – though late I hope they are 
> still timely.
>
> Steve
>
> *image001*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>**
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY 
> FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED 
> RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, 
> AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS 
> MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY 
> REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS 
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR 
> TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM 
> YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
>
> *From:*gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org> 
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:35 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's PP IRT call
>
> Hello, All,
>
> Thanks so much for your participation on today’s IRT call. I’ve 
> updated the issues list (attached) with the input we received on this 
> morning’s call. We have several outstanding discussion topics that we 
> are requesting your feedback on via the list this week (*requested 
> deadline of 21 August):*
>
> **
>
> 1.Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 1: definitions (outlined in 
> detail in attached slides from this week’s meeting)
>
> 2.Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 3: amendment/negotiation 
> process. Edits were proposed by ICANN this week to allow proposed 
> amendments to the PPAA to be considered by a working group convened by 
> the GNSO or the Privacy/Proxy Stakeholder Group (if one is ever 
> created). D*uring today’s call, it was recommended by an IRT member 
> that this should be limited, such that if there is ever a stakeholder 
> group, its members can participate in the GNSO-convened group, but 
> would not replace the GNSO-convened group in the PPAA amendment 
> negotiation process. *For reference, for the RAA negotiation process, 
> the “working group” for negotiations is convened by the RrSG (See 2013 
> RAA Section 7.4.1).**IRT feedback is requested on the proposed edits 
> as well as the recommendation raised on today’s call./Metalitz 
> comment:  I suggest that provider reps to the working group  be 
> selected by the stakeholder group if such is ever formed, while the 
> other interested parties come from GNSO. /
>
> *3.*Any additional feedback on PPAA issue 21: RAA synchronization. The 
> IRT was asked whether any future updates to the RAA involving sections 
> that are adapted in the PPAA should result in automatic updates to the 
> PPAA. *It was recommended on today’s call that updates could be 
> synchronized with the PPAA, but this should not be automatic. Any 
> proposed updates to the PPAA as a result of RAA updates should be 
> presented to the working group (referenced in Item 2, above) for 
> approval. *IRT feedback is sought on the topic of synchronization in 
> general, as well as the recommendation made on today’s call. In 
> addition, feedback is sought on whether, if we do decide to have an 
> approval mechanism before changes go into effect, the working group 
> should always be the approval mechanism or whether other means, such 
> as a public comment forum, could also be used./Metalitz comment:  
> Perhaps synchronization changes proposed by ICANN would take effect 
> unless objected to  by working group within 30 (?) days. /**
>
> *4.*Leading into next week’s continued discussion of the LEA 
> framework, additional IRT feedback is requested on the proposed edit 
> from the PSWG, that would reduce the time to review requests from LEA 
> from 2 business days to 24 hours (See PPAA Issue 19 in attached issues 
> list*). IRT feedback on this topic has not produced a clear consensus 
> on this topic. Please consider this issue and come prepared to discuss 
> this topic on next week’s call, with the goal of reaching a resolution 
> on this topic.*
>
> **
>
> */5./**Customer Data Accuracy (See item 15 in issues list). *It was 
> noted on-list and on today’s call that the requirements in the draft 
> Customer Data Accuracy Specification and Section 3.5.4.1, including 
> pending updates based on IRT input, may result in some inconsistencies 
> or lack of clarity surrounding requirements for providers. Please 
> provide any further input on this topic. ICANN will revisit these 
> provisions, taking into account IRT feedback, and propose language to 
> clarify these requirements./Metalitz comment:  Here is the drafting 
> suggestion I mentioned on previous call (in addition to scrubbing for 
> inconsistencies):  Change second sentence of Spec 2 to read:   “If any 
> provision in the Whois Accuracy Program of the 2013 RAA is revised 
> pursuant to section 6 of the 2013 RAA,  then any analogous provision 
> of this Specification shall be deemed amended to conform to such 
> revision…..[specifying the procedure for synchronization].”  In other 
> words, it is the RAA provision that is amended pursuant to RAA, not 
> the PPAA spec provision “in analogous form.” /*//*
>
> **
>
> Thanks so much in advance for your consideration of these items. For 
> next week’s call, we are planning to discuss:
>
>   * The PSWG-proposed update to the LEA framework,
>   * Proposed next steps on data retention based on IRT feedback,
>   * The IP framework,
>   * ICANN reporting requirements, and
>   * Any IRT feedback on the “business dealings” section of the PPAA
>     (section 3.5)(this was a topic suggested by an IRT member).
>
> If you have questions or comments in the interim, please don’t 
> hesitate to send them to the list.
>
> Best,
>
> Amy
>
> *Amy E. Bivins*
>
> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
>
> Registrar Services and Industry Relations
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
>
> Fax:  +1 (202) 789-0104
>
> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>
>
> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20170822/de64a3db/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8278 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20170822/de64a3db/image002-0001.png>