[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up actions from the call yesterday

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi All,
I don't think my edits were all substantive ones. There is a lot of 
information required to answer these questions, and I was advising that 
we use our combined expertise as a WG to assist the recipients so they 
can respond quickly  and fully, by:

a) incorporating definitions of p/p providers, and reveal and relay terms
b) supplementing questions a bit further to include nuances that appear 
to be missing but on which input is key as a clear part of the question 
being asked (e.g., re: noncommercial organizations as discussed in our 
meeting yesterday)
c) some of the additional holes identified by Volker on the list today.

I also wrote to staff privately with questions about bullet points that 
appear ambiguous, but did not receive an answer. So let me ask the WG:

·Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to 
reveal customer identities for this specific purpose?


What does this mean, and what is "this specific purpose?" Perhaps a 
drafter would know?

It was my understanding based on the call yesterday that we had been 
asked for our input, and staff would like to receive edits and 
suggestions by Friday, with compilation & consideration on the Tuesday 
call. In the interest of clarity, I would like to recommend that we 
follow this course.

Best,
Kathy

:
> Dear all,
>
> As discussed on the call yesterday, here are two action items for your 
> review.
>
> (1) The first concerns finalizing the letters to be sent to the SO/AC 
> Chairs, and the SG/Constituency Input Template to be sent to 
> SG/Cs. Attached please find a CLEAN version of both the SO/AC 
> invitation letters and the SG/C template for input that we are 
> requesting from individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SG/Cs).
>
> Please note that these are the same versions as were discussed during 
> the meeting earlier today, i.e. reflecting WG Chair Don Blumenthal's 
> edits as of 18 December 2013. This is because the more recent 
> suggestions made by Kathy, Gema and John (and for which a good 
> discussion is ongoing onlist) go largely toward proposed substantive 
> modification of the original Charter questions. The only change that 
> has been made is the addition of a sentence to the SO/AC letter, at WG 
> Vice Chair Steve Metalitz's suggestion, that reflects some of that 
> ongoing discussion.
>
> We suggest that for those types of substantive edits, staff compile 
> the suggestions into a separate document that the WG can review at a 
> subsequent meeting, for two reasons. First, the GNSO PDP Manual 
> specifies that SG/C input should be sought at an "early stage" in the 
> PDP, and that SG/Cs have 35 days to respond to a formal solicitation 
> for input. Assuming the letters and template go out at the end of this 
> week or early next, the due date for feedback will be mid-February 
> such that the WG will likely only be reviewing the feedback six weeks 
> from now at the earliest. Secondly, the SG/C input template as drafted 
> and with Don's edits reproduces the actual Charter questions -- and 
> any substantive modification of these should first be discussed by the 
> WG prior to circulation, since they may constitute additional issues 
> for which the WG may need to go back to the Council.
>
> (2) The second action item concerns Steve's proposal that the WG 
> request that ICANN staff ask those registrars subject to the 2013 
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) to provide links to 
> information that is either published on their website, or on that of 
> their privacy or proxy service, relating to the terms and conditions 
> of those services and a "description of procedures" employed by the 
> service in question for a number of functions, including receipt of 
> complaints of abuse, relay and reveal policies, conditions for 
> termination of service, and customer support. Although some of this 
> information is also being sought by the EWG's proposed questionnaire, 
> having the links provided to this WG may be helpful in addition to the 
> aggregated responses that the EWG plans to prepare to share with the 
> group.
>
> Please feel free to provide suggestions and revisions to the letter 
> and template to the list, and to indicate whether or not you support 
> Steve's suggestion (or not).
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>
> * One World. One Internet. *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140108/4ee1c011/attachment-0001.html>