The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 20 May 2014 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET). For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ldlymvl
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll Call / SOI
- Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1 and C2
- Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of item 2?
- Continue deliberations on D1
- Next steps / confirm next meeting
Documents for Review:
Proposed Template Language for Cat C Threshold Question (draft circulated on 19 May 2014)
Draft Template - Cat C Q-3 (as of 11 May 2014)
Draft Template - Cat D Q-1 (as of 19 May 2014)
MP3 Recording: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/45235
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-20may14-en.pdf
Attendees:
Tim Ruiz – RrSG
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Kathy Kleiman – RySG
Justin Macy – BC
James Bladel – RrSG
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Alex Deacon – IPC
Laura Jedeed – BC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Holly Raiche – ALAC
John Horton – BC
Roy Balleste – NCUC
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Libby Baney – BC
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
David Cake – NCSG
Valeriya Sherman – IPC
Susan Prosser- RrSG
Phil Marano – IPC
Paul McGrady – IPC
Jennifer Standiford – RrSG
Kristina Rosette – IPC
Brian Winterfeldt – IPC
Christian Dawson – ISPCP
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
Don Moody - IPC
Apologies:
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Darcy Southwell - RrSG
Amr Elsadr – NCUC
Tobias Sattler – RrSG
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Maria Farrell - NCUC
ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Joe Catapano
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 20 May 2014:
Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 20 May 2014
steve metalitz:awaiting entry to audio bridge
Paul McGrady:Good morning!
Marika Konings:Same here...
John Horton:Morning, all.
Bladel:Wiating on the operator....
Val Sherman:good morning all
Tim Ruiz:Good morning
Michele Neylon:waiting ..
Kathy K:Morning All!
Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm on audio now too
Terri Agnew:Kristina Rosette has joined
Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined
Terri Agnew:Brian Winterfeldt has joined
Kiran Malancharuvil:I propose we use the GNSO guidelines to determine the level of consensus and the terms that the GNSO as carefully constructed
Kiran Malancharuvil:Do NOT agree that leaving such a strong phrase in as a "placeholder" is appropriate. Sorry.
Marika Konings:the GNSO WG Guidelines use the term 'most agree' or 'most support' - would that work?
Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined
Kiran Malancharuvil:Marika, I still think we need to have a better determination of what the group really thinks first
Kiran Malancharuvil:in addition to the language issue
Volker Greimann:James+1, but we need a vote for that
Kiran Malancharuvil:Because number of voices is not how consensus is determined
John Horton:Marika, I would concur with Kiran that it would be ideal to use the GNSO guidelinesn to assess the level of support.
John Horton:And I think we do need to have a better sense of exactly where the group is.
Bladel:Not a vote necessarily, but a consensus test.
Volker Greimann:fully agreed
Bladel:ANd this particularl quesiton needs to be opened up to a larger audience (outside of ICANN, the consumers of these services.)
Volker Greimann:We should use the correct terminology, when we know where we are
Terri Agnew:Roy Balleste has joined
Marika Konings:All, I've posted the relevant language from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on the right hand side
Kiran Malancharuvil:I don't think it matters in what context it's being used. It's still not an appropriate term
Marika Konings:The WG Guidelines also explain the process that is typically use to make a determination (which normally does NOT include voting)
Michele Neylon:just delete the term "overwhelming" and move on
Kristina Rosette:To be clear, I'm not suggesting we vote. I am suggesting that we ensure that all WG members who want to weigh in have done so or have indicated that their positions are still under development.
Kiran Malancharuvil:No, because majority is also not potentially accurate
Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined
Michele Neylon:This is a massive waste of time
Michele Neylon:we're 20 minutes into this call and we're arguing over two words
Michele Neylon:in a single paragraph
Alex Deacon:@michele +1 delete the term and move on.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Not to us Michele, and frankly I'm getting sick of you labeling things that you don't feel are important as a waste of time.
Michele Neylon:or put it to a vote
Tim Ruiz:A consensus of WG members believed that proxy/privacy services should be available to all entities.
Kiran Malancharuvil:It's not respectful in this environment.
Kristina Rosette:Do we have consensus (sorry) that we should replace overwhelming majority with the corresponding consensus characterization.
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Kristina, it's too early to determine consensus
Michele Neylon:Maybe just put it to a vote
Michele Neylon:or put brackets around the entire thing until we can put it to a vote
Kristina Rosette:@Kiran: Got it. Perhaps we should bracket text that needs to be revisited.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Probably a good idea, but don't want to include terms that may sway the issues in one direction or another
Val Sherman:+1 Kristina
Terri Agnew:Christian Dawson has joined
Kathy K:Should there be a difference in the data fields to be displayed if the domain name is registered or used by a commercial entity? - is that your recommended rewording, Steve?
steve metalitz:@Kathy, Yes for initial discussion.
Michele Neylon:Kathy's snubbing me? :)
Chris Pelling:Or as Mochele pointed out where does it start, where will it end,, ie what other "fields" will be worked into a whois service that already cant cope and is still not totally standard
Chris Pelling:@Kathy you will have lots of additional fields - I think personally this is something that should not be added
Holly Raiche:@Kathy +1
Tim Ruiz:I think at best, we could only recommend considering this or that the next time a WHOIS PDP or other WG considers changes to WHOIS. P/P services cannot enforce anything in the WHOIS.
Chris Pelling:@Tim +1
Bladel:Agree with Kathy.
Chris Pelling:@Kathy +1
Bladel:This is about how PP services use WHOIS,
Bladel:THey do not control output.
Tim Ruiz:Kathy is correct.
Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa has joined
Bladel:So a "partial" proxy?
Bladel:I don't agree with leaving "hints" in WHOIS.
Bladel:or if they have an SSL cert
Libby Baney:I don't agree with Michele's assumption that people don't use WHOIS, rather just rely on the About Us/Contact section of a website. As noted in the paper I circulated, WHOIS is an important mechanism for consumers -- and having transparent WHOIS is consistent with the AoC for consumer trust
Kiran Malancharuvil:WHOIS is an extremeley important tool for consumer protection
Bladel:aka "net vigiliantes"
Tim Ruiz:John, what does that have to do with C3?
Stephanie Perrin:I would like to see the consumer research that supports the assertion that whois is actually being used extensively by consumers for consumer protection. I understand that governments who have not regulated e-commerce rely on it, but I have not found those studies indicating the average consumer is using it, I did check with a couple of my contacts in consumer affairs here isn Canada.
Tim Ruiz:Kiran, waht
Kathy K:+1 James, I was just looking for the Whois Review Team report section...
Kathy K:It would be useful for us now.
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, are you asking me a question?
Tim Ruiz:Sorry. Kiran, what does that have to do with C3?
David Cake:There are a number of commercial services that might be legal in their jurisdiction, providing services as described, but controversial enough to want to use privacy or proxy services to deter harrassment.
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, it was in response to what was being discussed by John and MIchele
Tim Ruiz:Ok, thanks.
Kathy K:"Overall, awareness of WHOIS is low. When asked to find a website domain owner, most Users do not think to utilize the WHOIS site." - from Whois Review Team commissioned outside study
Laura Jedeed:+1 Kiran
Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy!
Tim Ruiz:what is th
Susan Prosser:+1 Kiran
Tim Ruiz:Sorry again. What is the problem we are trying to solve? Why is commercial use of a private name bad?
Tim Ruiz:No.
Michele Neylon:Tim - cos it's um ..
Michele Neylon:oh I don't know
Michele Neylon:Kathy - thanks for that quote
Kathy K:@Tim, I don't think commercial use is bad, nor do I see the vast majority of commercial users engaged directly with consumers. Most business use is business-to-business which is governed by entirely different rules.
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Tim, I think the white paper might be worth reading if you're still unclear about why consumer protection advocates like myself are advocating our position
Kathy K:+1 Volker - domain names are multi-use, and available for so many uses: listserves, FTP, websites, emails....
Stephanie Perrin:Excellent point Volker, re assets in bankruptcy.
Kiran Malancharuvil:End use consumers still have a right to know who isbehind the B2B transactions. For example, I have a right to know who makes the processor in my computer even if they refuse to sell it directly to me.
Kathy K:@Kiran: I have no idea who Fios/Verizon buys its fiber optic cable from - although it serves my house - and they would never let me see those contracts
Volker Greimann:Kiran: Then go to your local government and ask them to legislate a requirement to put an imprint on the webpage
Kiran Malancharuvil:but you would have the right to find out
Volker Greimann:It worked VERY well in Europe
Kathy K:+1 Tim
Libby Baney:@Tim -- I think there is a difference between using a p/p service vs providing different (but transparent) contact information for domain names engaged in commercial activities
Volker Greimann:no imprint on the page, don't do business
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Volker, are you suggesting that I have no place in THIS process?
Volker Greimann:not at all, but I am arguing that the right to know who you are doing business with belongs on the webpage, not the whois
Kiran Malancharuvil:I disagree, and I have that right, and in my opinion, the obligation
Libby Baney:@Volker -- how does that position square with the AoC?
Kiran Malancharuvil:The respect level for divergent opinions in this group is so low.
Kiran Malancharuvil:It's very discouraging.
Kathy K:@Libby, I think it does square with the AOC
Volker Greimann:as the AoC is on the way out, we will have to see...
Tim Ruiz:Kiran, disagreement is not disrespect.
Stephanie Perrin:The AoC does not and must not substitute for normal regulatory activity of governments.
Kiran Malancharuvil:The tone of the disagreement is what I'm addressing Tim.
Bladel:Didn't we have some other homework regarding Transfers & other transactions?
Kathy K:Because final answers were not mandated by the AOC.
Paul McGrady:Agree that a list of accredited providers makes sense.
Volker Greimann:just checked, the AoC states: " enforcing its existing policy". I see an emphasis on "existing" there
Bladel:Responsiveness doesn't guarantee you'll get the answer you want. :)
Michele Neylon:exactly
Michele Neylon:"Can I buy your domain for 10 euro"
Michele Neylon:no - get lost
Michele Neylon:"weh weh - I don't like that reply"
Michele Neylon::)
Chris Pelling:and more importantly lsat week, an answer to general joe may/will be different to that of LEA
Chris Pelling:both in time and tone
Michele Neylon:Chris - agreed
Terri Agnew:Don Moody has joined
Michele Neylon:An Garda Siochana tend to phone
Paul McGrady:I would like to hear more about the transfer issue than the 2 minutes remaining would allow today. Can we get it on the list for next time?
Michele Neylon:1 minute...
Chris Pelling:Paul, just make sure we dont spend 20 minutes clarrifying "wording" last week it was 1 word, this week 2 words...
John Horton:James, very late response on the "net vigilantes" point -- keep in mind it is sometimes customers too, who (in my world) got a drug that didn't work, and trying to figure out more information about the website they ordered from! :) So not just vigilantees...
Bladel:Agree. Let's get it on the agenda for next time.
Justin Macy:@Volker "Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. ... ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust."
Tim Ruiz:Thanks Steve! Bye all.
Kathy K:Tx Steve and All!
Bladel:thx all.
