[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up from WG call today
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Sep 24 16:22:49 UTC 2015
+1 to James, James and Volker. It is a very important point and principle.
Kathy
On 9/23/2015 5:11 PM, James Gannon wrote:
> Well said James. I think we need to present a strong case for the GNSO
> Council to vote on on our recommendations, anything less than a set of
> strong consensus recommendations will make that a hard decision for
> them given the importance of this PDP, and the public vision that is
> likely to be on it when it comes to the vote.
>
> -James
>
> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "James M.
> Bladel"
> Date: Wednesday 23 September 2015 12:36
> To: Volker Greimann, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up from WG call today
>
> I agree that we need to identify those recommendations that have
> crossed the threshold for Consensus support, and recommendations that
> haven’t need to be moved to a minority report.
>
> A clearly designated demarcation will help the GNSO make sense of our
> final report, and ensure that controversial items are not co-mingled
> with generally-supported recommendations, which could put the entire
> accreditation framework in jeopardy.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Volker
> Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 3:46
> To: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Follow up from WG call today
>
> Based on the discussions yesterday, i want to make the following
> remarks for the road ahead:
>
> I feel strongly that when drafting the report should not deviate from
> the consensus positions. While we may refer to minority positions,
> these should be clearly marked as non-consensus views held by a
> minority of the members of the WG.
>
> I also feel no love for any attempts to sneak in best practice
> suggestions for providers that are not based on a consensus view.
>
> While we may want to include language that refers to the
> recommendations as creating a minimum standard that may be built upon
> by indiviual providers, i.e. clarify that providers are not limited by
> the recommendations in case they want to regulate more strongly, but
> we should not infer in any way how these stronger policies could or
> should look like, unless we do it by the way of a clearly marked
> minority statement.
>
> Finally, I urge the WG to at least consider alternatives to an
> accreditation scheme, both because I feel that accreditation is not
> the ideal solution and would create more problems than it will solve
> and because not doing so would risk exposing our work to the criticism
> of not having considered all options.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
> Am 22.09.2015 um 19:22 schrieb Mary Wong:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please find below the notes and “action items” (including suggested
>> deadlines) arising from the WG call of earlier today.
>>
>> (1) Proposed text for an updated Section 1.3.2 (based on work of Sub
>> Team 1):
>> - Please review and bring up any concerns about inaccuracies (i.e. In
>> reflecting Sub Team 1’s recommendations and/or the WG’s conclusions)
>> and suggested edits to the WG mailing list by *Friday 25 September*
>>
>> (2) Proposed text for an updated Section 1.3.3 (based on work of Sub
>> Team 2):
>> - Need to clarify that para 1 on pg 1 refers to the WG status (no
>> consensus) at the time the Initial Report was published (i.e.
>> background to the Final Report text)
>> - Pg 2: Need to clarify language to more clearly state that the WG
>> recognizes that some providers currently have restrictions, and the
>> WG is not recommending that making the distinction be made an
>> accreditation standard/requirement
>> - Pg 2 para 1: Change "deny" to “differentiate”, and check on WG
>> usage of “online financial transactions” (as opposed to “commercial”
>> vs. “non-commercial”)
>> - Pg 2: Drop the last two paragraphs of the document due to lack of
>> support
>> - Please send any additional comments (besides the ones discussed
>> today and resolved as summarized above) to the WG mailing list by
>> *Friday 25 September*
>>
>> (3) Next steps for Sub Team 3:
>> - Bring back recommendations or alternative proposals (especially on
>> the question of what would be sufficient for "verifiable evidence”)
>> to the WG for *discussion on the call next week*
>>
>> (4) Next steps for Sub Team 4:
>> - Summary and updated report to be presented on the WG call *next week*
>>
>> (5) Next steps on Issue Spotting (Parts 1, 2, 3 of WG Public Comment
>> Review Tool):
>> - WG members to review current list and note on WG mailing which (if
>> any) might result in the WG having to change one or more of its
>> Preliminary Recommendations; such issues as well as operational
>> concerns raised by GDD/Compliance (if relevant) to be discussed at a
>> subsequent WG meeting
>>
>> I hope the above is useful. Please feel free to start and continue
>> discussions on these topics on this mailing list!
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 17:35
>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 22 September
>>
>> Hello again everyone,
>>
>> Attached is a document from Sub Team 4 that shows most of the
>> general comments it has reviewed, its categorizations of these
>> into one or more of seven possible categories, and other notes
>> from the Sub Team. As you’ll recall, Sub Team 4 was tasked to
>> review those public comments that were placed by staff into Part
>> 4 of the WG’s Public Comment Review Tool, as being comments that,
>> while substantive, were not formulated to specifically answer or
>> address a particular WG recommendation (those that were having
>> already been placed into either Parts 1, 2 or 3 of the WG’s
>> Public Comment Review Tool or referred to one of the other three
>> Sub Teams).
>>
>> For completeness of record, please note that the comments that
>> were reviewed and reflected in this document do not specifically
>> include the statements sent in through Respect Our Privacy, the
>> petition from Save Domain Privacy, or the additional 500+ pages
>> of comments made by signatories of the Save Domain Privacy
>> petition. These have either been referred to (and reviewed by)
>> Sub Teams 2 or 3 (as applicable), or generally summarized them
>> into a set of categories for Sub Teams 2, 3 and 4 in mid-August
>> (as noted in Section II of Part 4 of the WG’s Public Comment
>> Review Tool).
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>
>>
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 02:59
>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 22 September
>>
>> Dear WG members,
>>
>> The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for
>> Tuesday 22 September at 1400 UTC, is as follows:
>>
>> 1. Roll call/updates to SOI
>> 2. Discuss proposed updated text for Section 1.3.2 of WG
>> report based on WG discussions of Sub Team 1’s
>> recommendations (see attached document and note below)
>> 3. Discuss proposed updated text for Section 1.3.3 of WG
>> report based on WG co-chairs’ suggested text (see
>> attached document – as circulated to the WG on 18 September)
>> 4. Status update/report from Sub Team 4 (co-conveners: Kathy
>> Kleiman & Paul McGrady; document forthcoming)
>> 5. [if time permits] Review list of issues spotted from
>> Parts 1-3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (see
>> attached document)
>> 6. Next steps
>>
>> Important note on Agenda Item #2: The attached text has not
>> yet been fully reviewed by Sub Team 1. It was prepared by
>> staff based on the recommendations and reports from Sub Team
>> 1 and the consequent WG discussions and conclusions.
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email:vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email:vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150924/4a1d3d16/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list