The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 20 January 2015 at 1500 UTC (07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/kw898dc
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll Call/Updates to SOI
- Continue discussion of Executive Summary to Draft Initial Report
- Discuss preliminary recommendations for Category F (Relay)
- Next steps/next meeting
Documents for Review:
DRAFT Initial Report - updated 13 Jan 2015
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20jan15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript:
Attendees:
Frank Michlick – Individual
Justin Macy - BC
Val Sherman – IPC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Kathy Kleiman – NCSG
Phil Corwin – BC
Darcy Southwell – RrSG
Todd Williams – IPC
David Heasley - IPC
Chris Pelling - RrSG
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Luc Seufer – RrSG
Christian Dawson – ISPCP
Alex Deacon -IPC
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Jim Bikoff - IPC
Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG
Michele Neylon- RrSG
Susan Prosser - RrSG
Apologies:
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Sarah Wyld – RrSG
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Richard Leaning – no SOI
James Bladel – RrSG
Stephanie Perrin - NCSG
Marika Konings
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Daniela Andela
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 20 January 2015
Terri Agnew:Dear All, Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting on the 20 January 2015
Chris Pelling:afternoon all
Val Sherman:Hello all
Michele Neylon:can't dial in for now - on another call
Nathalie Peregrine:Susan Prosser and Carlon Samuels have joined
Carlton Samuels:Morning all
Graeme Bunton:Thanks Don
Nathalie Peregrine:ChristianDawson has joined the calll
Don Blumenthal:I figured I would do something substantive by asking for the SOI changes.
Graeme Bunton:Section 1.3.1
Luc Seufer:As long as the implementation WG doesn't come up with crazy requirements (attchament siez limit etc)
Kathy Kleiman:So footnote to para 12: However, each P/P Provider shall implement this "standardized form" in its own way -- including by website, email, etc
Graeme Bunton:Sure, sounds fine
Kathy Kleiman:I think that captures it Steve
Carlton Samuels:@Kathy's +1
Mary Wong:@Steve, we can move up #16 to facilitate reading and organization
Luc Seufer:Forward doesn't imply that PP provider will actually acknowledge (read) the communications but solely transmit them automatically to the applicable registrants, right?
Alex Deacon:In 14 - Are the references to "Category E" and "Category B Question 2" out of context in the summary section?
Chris Pelling:"automated telephone calls" Steve you mentioned this ?
Kathy Kleiman:Automated phone calls???
Luc Seufer:thanks Steve
Chris Pelling:yeah, what the heck is that ?
Chris Pelling:Yeah I dont either
Chris Pelling:Sorry, no to automated phone calls
Chris Pelling:we cannot accept calls and them type them out to relay them
Kathy Kleiman:It's confusing!
Mary Wong:@Graeme, yes, SMS/text messaging came up but there was no agreement on how to deal with them, or whether to include a mention of them.
Chris Pelling:I would pipe up but my voice is killing me
Luc Seufer:or we remove it all together
Chris Pelling:+1 Luc
Carlton Samuels:We should leave it open to other forms of communications!
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes +1
Mary Wong:@Steve, @Carlton, that was the idea :)
Luc Seufer:can't wait for hologram calls!
Kathy Kleiman:Does 16 work with regard to Reveal?
Kathy Kleiman:I think so...
Luc Seufer:its starts by stating so in its current version
Val Sherman:Might it be better to say “any practice of providers” instead of “prevailing practice among providers”?
Kathy Kleiman:+1 Steve, agree OK to delete relay in 16
Luc Seufer:I think so to
Mary Wong:Shall we just delete the word "prevailing"?
Luc Seufer:even if we wanted to I know of no technical system that could allow us to automatically reveal
Kathy Kleiman:can you read it out loud, Steve?
Kathy Kleiman:What is Category B, Question 2?
Mary Wong:@Steve, that's right - the point you noted isn't one that we have WG consensus on yet, so it's in 1.3.2 instead.
Kathy Kleiman:Tx Steve!
Mary Wong:Noted, Steve, thanks :)
Kathy Kleiman:Agree about making this understandable to all...
Luc Seufer:RAA 2013
Mary Wong:Yes, it's from the RAA
Kathy Kleiman:I don't think it should go in a footnote -- but perhaps a later paragraph
Mary Wong:Use "a common" versus "the prevailing"?
Kathy Kleiman:Switch 16 and 17? Does that make it clearer to anyone?
Graeme Bunton:It's not outrageously incongruous to me. Perhaps Kathy is right and we should put it behind 17
Val Sherman:+1 Kathy
Mary Wong:Oops, just saw typos in the first bullet point of 17 - will fix.
Carlton Samuels:@Kathy re switching 16 & 17: Maybe it would
Kathy Kleiman:Re: bullet 4, did we (WG) agree that P/P provider must respond to each and every request for a Reveal?
Kathy Kleiman:Consider situations where the request is bizarre (e.g., diapers), or redundant/multiple (e.g., 25 requests)
Graeme Bunton:We may want soem language in there to help with that, good point Kathy
Luc Seufer:agreed
Kathy Kleiman:how to revamp?
Mary Wong:@Steve, yes I think that's right - we've assumed but should prob make it explicit
Mary Wong:Absolutely!
Luc Seufer:@Kathy by adding another bullet precising this apply to reasonable request in terms of their scope, number...
Don Blumenthal: Yep. :)
Mary Wong:For clarity - this language in #17 is carried over from documents from early October.
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: +1
Kathy Kleiman:Tx Steve!
Luc Seufer:thanks Steve!
Graeme Bunton:Thanks for Chairing Steve
Carlton Samuels:Thanks Steve and all. Went smoothly!
Val Sherman:Thanks all!
