The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 11 August 2015 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Initial report/update from Sub Team 3 on Annex E
- Review of specific issues identified by WG members as arising from public comments on WG preliminary recommendations #1 through #9 (circulated on 20 July)
- Next steps
Documents for Review:
Summary of Annex E comments - 10 August
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-11aug15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsai-11aug15-en.pdf
Attendees:
Graeme Bunton RrSG
Val Sherman IPC
Kathy Kleiman NCSG
Stephanie Perrin NCSG
Terri Stumme BC
Todd Williams IPC
Vicky Sheckler IPC
Volker Greimann - RrSG
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid RrSG
Griffin Barnett- IPC
David Cake - NCSG
Sara Bockey RrSG
Don Blumenthal RySG
Roger Carney - RrSG
Frank Michlick Individual
Holly Raiche ALAC
Steve Metalitz – IPC
James Gannon NCUC
Sarah Wyld – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Darcy Southwell – RrSG
Rudi Vansnick – NPOC
James Bladel RrSG
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Susan Kawaguchi – BC
Paul McGrady IPC
David Hughes - IPC
Apologies:
Dick Leaning – Individual
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Phil Corwin - BC
Don Blumenthal - RySG
Marika Konings -Staff
Amy Bivins - Staff
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 11 August 2015
Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 11th August 2015
Nathalie Peregrine:@ Holly, the operator will be dialing out to you shortly
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Hey everyone
Graeme Bunton:We'll get started at 1 or 2 mins after as per usual
Chris Pelling:Afternoon all
Holly Raiche:morning all
Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the bridge
Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the AC room
Nathalie Peregrine:Kathy Kleiman and Osvaldo Novoa have joined the AC room
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late
Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo and everyone, no worries, Todd is just going through the Sub Team's initial analysis of Annex E.
Nathalie Peregrine:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid has joined the AC roomm
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies for being late.
Nathalie Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:As has Volker Greimann
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I belive we have the drafters on the call. I suggest we ask them rather than guessing.
Chris Pelling:+1 James
Mary Wong:One potential issue with that (as noted for the Sub team) is that while the drafters may have a certain meaning in mind, tsome of he 10,042 signatories may have had a different meaning in mind.
stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy
steve metalitz:+1 Mary
Vicky Sheckler:+1 mary
Nathalie Peregrine:David Hughes is also on the audio bridge
Mary Wong:The Sub Team has distinguished between signing the petition and submitting additional comments alongside (see the [x] in the paragraph that discusses the Save Domain Privacy petition.
Nathalie Peregrine:Sara Bockey has joined the AC room
Mary Wong:They plan to ask the drafters of the petition for the number that is [x].
Sara Bockey:apologies for my lateness
Kathy K:I think James focuses on an area of additional work - the substance of the comments submitted along with the petition.
James Bladel:200+ comments, while a minority of the campaign signatures, is still quite a large number, IMO.
Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think if you look at the media coverage and oped's that were pointing people towards both petitions were clearly advocating against the premise of Annex E. I would seriously disagree on the interpreseation of the comments as supportive of Annex E.
James Bladel:+1 James. I think considering these signatures as support of Annex E (as written in the Initial Report) is the larger assumption.
Mary Wong:Maybe it's not possible to have a single characterization of what the signatories as a group supported or not. Perhaps the WG can consider highlighting/noting that there was a peition signed by 10,042 people that spoke to the issue, but include a further analysis/summary of what the additional comments said more specifically (to the extent they said anything specific, e.g. court order).
Todd Williams:Got to run, thanks everybody.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wicheevr we look at it we will ahve over 11000 comments in opposition to the basic premise of Ammex E.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Wow terrible spelling
Graeme Bunton:Thanks Todd
Graeme Bunton:great work on this.
Holly Raiche:I like James' suggestion that it should be read in light of the use of the term in the RAA
Darcy Southwell:+1 James G.
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:I think we also have to remember that while these comments are relevant, they were not, as far as I am aware, given in as part of the public comments to the initial report. I am therefore unsure how much time we should spend on them in relation to the report due to time contraints.
Vicky Sheckler:+1 steve
Holly Raiche:Both a court order and Ssubpoena a least require a court/justice - i.e., a third, judicial person, to make a decision on what should or should not be done
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think we are treating our commenters as experienced laywers who have extensive experience in legal terminology and application of legal phrasing. They are not.
Kathy K:Mission accepted, Graeme
val sherman:To my knowledge, these meanings of verifiable vs verified are common
steve metalitz:Agree that the subteam has done an excellent job in teeing up thse issues.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Well I certaintly wouldnt have made the distinction that is being made here. Mybe its a US commonality.
val sherman:But we cannot say that those petitioned didn't understand the difference; rather, we should assume that they did.
Kathy K:Adding to Steve: complaints before a court are subject to rules, including sanctions for misrepresentation. It's a high bar. We have no such enforcement mechanisms here
steve metalitz:@James good point about minimum/maximum standards. One reason why rule barring disclosure without court order would be extremely difficult to maintain.
Mary Wong:@James, I'm not American and would say I've understood the distinction since before moving to the US (note that this does NOT mean I/staff support any one or other suggested approach being discussed).
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Termination is different to disclusure/prublication... termination does not require the details to be published, uness Im misunderstanding
stephanie Perrin:Good point James G
stephanie Perrin:However something does have to go in the whois
James Bladel:"Non-automated comments"?
Volker A. Greimann:if that is your interpretation of what they say, maybe the best solution is to scrap this projet
Volker A. Greimann:project
Volker A. Greimann:(i am not advocating that, just noting it as a possible result)
James Bladel:To my knowledge, none of the comments received were automated.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:What automated comments?
Frank Michlick:"automated comments"?
Frank Michlick:every comment was submitted by a person that initiated that process.
James Bladel:Please explain "automated comments"
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:If we are going down this route and approach then should we read the comments as not supporting an accreditation regime at all then.
Mary Wong:@James, a couple of comments addressed this point specifically but a number offered suggestions based on the assumption that there would be such a program. Having read most of the comments, I'm honestly not sure how that would help.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Maybe its a point we should take to "No comment left behind" a
James Bladel:@Stephanie - Your comment aligns with the other text on the SDP campaign site.
Vicky Sheckler:stephanie - under every p/p terms of service that i've read, part of the deal is that you don't use the domain for unlawful purposes
James Bladel:@Vicky - correct. Nothing in the SDP campaign indicated that p/p providers would harbor or tolerate criminal activity.
stephanie Perrin:I understand that Vicky, but that does not mean anyone can allege illegal activity and find out who you aer.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes and the rightfu definer of hat is unlawful is the courts and LEO.
Vicky Sheckler:taking a "but for" approach to responsibility in an interconnected world is problematic and undermines the sytem
steve metalitz:@Kathy, this is a different cost recovery process from the one addressed by subteam on 1.3.2
steve metalitz:One is for relay, one is for disclose
Kathy K:Right!
stephanie Perrin:Yes on more time, I have not got through all the comments yet, dont know about everyone else...
James Bladel:Excluding lawers/law firms from this framework opens up a huge loophole, IMO. Concerned that good guy P/P providers would have to compete against providers hiding behind this exclusion.
Chris Pelling:I beleive this is then unfair
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think that might exclude some regisrtars no?
Chris Pelling:if the "service" is being offered, it is being offered by a level playing field
stephanie Perrin:I dont understand how this addresses the cybercrime problem....it merely means organized criminals act through lawyers who set up firms specializing in proxy services.
James Bladel:Looked at the clock and lowered my hand. :)
Frank Michlick:But how do you enforce including lawyers in this? I think they should fall under this, but that would mean a change of the standard registration agreement forbidding lawyers to use their information for their clients unless they are awhois privacy/proxy provider accreddited with ICANN.
steve metalitz:+1Kathy, this is an "issue spotting" phase, not for detailed discussion now.
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes I would see that as a very complex issue.
stephanie Perrin:That sounds doable Frank....
stephanie Perrin:We already did put the lawyer issue aside...
Mary Wong:@Steve, yes - it would be really helpful if WG members can issue-spot.
Kathy K:Lawyers and others (registered agent services) who might be providing extensive proxy/privacy services
steve metalitz:@Let's spot the issues in 2-9 on list please!
Frank Michlick:It was just brought up before... Most recently similar whois I noticed was Google's/Alphabet's abc.xyz - should DNSstitation in whois.
James Bladel:Eastern Daylight. :)
Frank Michlick:(it was brought up in the call)
Frank Michlick:thanks everyone
Mary Wong:Please send your issues to the llst. IT will help us keep track.
James Bladel:Thanks, Graeme & team.
Chris Pelling:thanks#
Osvaldo Novoa:Thank and By
James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:thanks all
Kathy K:Tx Graeme, tx all!
Rudi Vansnick:bye
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Thanks all
val sherman:thanks all
