[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Thu May 22 15:40:00 UTC 2014

Also, I should probably clarify that I also mean not all SGs and Cs within the GNSO have fully weighed in on the issue. I meant to include that in my original email but I'm at the airport and slightly distracted. 

Thanks,

K

Kiran Malancharuvil 
Internet Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m) 

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. 

> On May 22, 2014, at 8:36 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
> 
> Exactly our point.  I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point. 
> 
> K
> 
> Kiran Malancharuvil 
> Internet Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415-419-9138 (m) 
> 
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. 
> 
>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>> 
>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we all
>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members, we do
>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our individual
>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to remember
>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless of
>>> where you fall on the issue.
>>> 
>>> K
>>> 
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>> 
>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>> 
>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven"
>>> <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
>>> 
>>> Could you clarify one point:
>>> 
>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C,
>>> disagreedŠ.²  Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney at fwdstrategies.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM
>>> To: Marika Konings
>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven;
>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>> 
>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the
>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the
>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template
>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l,
>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your
>>> comments and further discussion if needed.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Libby
>>> 
>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings
>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated
>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if
>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing
>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
>>> 
>>> 1.  Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C
>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested
>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other
>>> proposed edits?
>>> 2.  Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of
>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed
>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
>>> 3.  Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it
>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact
>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P
>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on
>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses
>>> are also encouraged.
>>> 4.  Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on
>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and
>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Marika
>>> 
>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
>>> To: Marika Konings
>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>,
>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>> 
>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call.  Following up on requests
>>> made on the call ----
>>> 
>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold),
>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!)
>>> proposed edits.  Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.
>>> 
>>> Regarding question C.3:  If the following applies to you, please respond
>>> on the list:
>>> 
>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial
>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in
>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p
>>> registrations by natural persons)?  If the answer is YES, please specify
>>> the differences.
>>> 
>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES
>>> people will step forward on the list.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: 
>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann
>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika
>>> Konings
>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Marika
>>> 
>>> Proposed Agenda  PPSAI WG Meeting  20 May 2014
>>> 
>>> 1.  Roll Call / SOI
>>> 2.  Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1
>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don)
>>> 3.  Review C3  is additional response/discussion needed in light of
>>> item 2? (see template attached)
>>> 4.  Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
>>> 5.  Next steps / confirm next meeting
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Libby Baney, JD
>>> President
>>> FWD Strategies International
>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com>
>>> P: 202-499-2296
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg