13 May 2014
- Mary Wong
The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 13 May 2014 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET). For other times: http://tinyurl.com/pysbfhy
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll Call/SOI Updates
- Conclusion of Deliberations on Category C
- Commencement of Deliberations on Category D, Question 1
- Next Steps/Next Meeting
Documents for Review:
PPSAI - Cat C - Question 1 - 30 April 2014
PPSAI - Category C - Question 2 - 9 May 2014
PPSAI - Category C - Question 3 - 11 May 2014
PPSAI Category D - Question 1 - 12 May 2014
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140513-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsa-13may14-en.pdf
Attendees:
Luc Seufer - RrSG
Tim Ruiz – RrSG
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Kathy Kleiman – RySG
Darcy Southwell - RrSG
Justin Macy – BC
David Heasley – IPC
James Bladel – RrSG
Phil Marano – IPC
Christian Dawson – ISPCP
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Alex Deacon – IPC
Laura Jedeed – BC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Tatiana Khramstova - RrSG
John Horton – BC
Jim Bikoff – IPC
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Roy Balleste – NCUC
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Libby Baney – BC
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Frank Michlick – RrSG
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
David Cake – NCSG
Valeriya Sherman – IPC
Apologies:
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Amr Elsadr – NCUC
Susan Prosser- RrSG
Tobias Sattler – RrSG
Don Moody - IPC
ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Mary Wong
Amy Bivins
Joe Catapano
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 13 May 2014:
Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 13th May 2014
Bladel:Dialing in...
Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined
Terri Agnew:James I have added you to attendance list
Kathy K:Tx Don!
Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined
Terri Agnew:Justin Macy has joined
Frank Michlick:Sorry - just watching a the moment still in a call.
Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined
Kiran Malancharuvil:I think it's still a mischaracterization to call it an overwhelming majority, especially since a lot of the voices are in the same SG. If you are going to throw around the term consensus, we need to actually parse out who (and what SG or C) is saying what.
Kiran Malancharuvil:and that goes for both "sides" of the issue
Don Blumenthal:More than one group has a lot of voices in favor of No
Kiran Malancharuvil:and more than one group has a lot of Yes's or please explore DOn
John Horton:Don, I'd agree with Kiran. I think "consensus" generally means "no significant disagreement." I wouldn't say that's the case here.
Don Blumenthal:Definitions of "consensus" don't have the consensus you suggest
Kiran Malancharuvil:I especially think it's inappropriate to call consensus before we explored Libby's good work which was circulated in response to a request for information last week.
Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined
Michele Neylon:This is out of scope
Michele Neylon:ICANN is not a consumer protection agency
John Horton:Merriam-Webster defines "consensus" as: : a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group
Michele Neylon:John - GNSO has consensus defined
John Horton:Ah -- link to definition?
Marika Konings:@John - in the GNSO context, consensus is defined as 'Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree'
John Horton:Ah, thanks.
Michele Neylon:John - Marika can give you a link
Marika Konings:this is contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures (Annex 1 - GNSO WG Guidelines)
Marika Konings:I'll dig out the link now
Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks to IOC/RCRC, I'm well aware of the GNSO definition and still don't think it's appropriate in this context
John Horton:Right. I appreciate the definition, but I agree it shouldn't be a consensus.
Marika Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-26mar14-en.pdf - section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions
Chris Pelling:Totally agree
Stephanie Perrin:+1 Michele
Marika Konings:And just for the record, I'm not suggesting that there is or isn't consensus according to the definition ;-)
Kiran Malancharuvil:The AoC demands accountability to consumers
Marika Konings:The process for making that determination is also outlined in that same section, by the way.
Chris Pelling:Michele hit the nail on the head, we are here to define, not to state "who" and "who doesnt" / cant use it
Libby Baney:Good point Don re GNSO charter
Libby Baney:Yes, you're right - the paper addresses commercial "activity" not commercial "entities"
Bladel:Can someone show me in our Charter where we are authorized to create policy regarding content of website(s)?
Don Blumenthal:I will not in the margins that not all domains have web sites. How can/should their purposes be determined by outside review
Luc Seufer:@Bladel can we extend that question to ICANN by-laws?
Kathy K:Threshold question revisited: Currently, proxy/privacy services are available to companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals. Should there be any change to this aspect of the current system in the new accreditation standards?
Don Blumenthal:Content isn't in our remit; category issues and how they might work are.
Michele Neylon:So how the hell are we meant to know what our clients do with their email?
Michele Neylon:assuming the domain is only for email
Bladel:Indeed. Why does spam still exist?
Don Blumenthal:I asked you first. :)
Michele Neylon:Bladel - well I may have found a way of monetising that :)
Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined
Kiran Malancharuvil:possibly on mute...
Kiran Malancharuvil:having computer issues
Kiran Malancharuvil:will call in, no worries please move on
David Cake:My apologies for turning up so late.
Kathy K:+1 Holly
David Cake:FWIW, I'm a pretty strong no on C2.
Terri Agnew:Val Sherman has joined
John Horton:+1 on Kiran's comments.
Libby Baney:+1 to Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil:I also do not think it's a "massive waste of time"
Libby Baney:@Kathy - I agree, more time would be valuable
Libby Baney:@kathy - we intended to address the sole/mom&pop businesses in the paper. Happy to have more discussion on this point
Kathy K:But Libby - commercial groups use proxy/privacy services
Kathy K:They have since the beginning, and they use their lawyers in huge numbers.
Kathy K:(for registration of domain names)
Kiran Malancharuvil:@James - a question for the ages. we've been trying for outreach on so many issues!
Kathy K:Why are the deemed unworthy now?
Justin Macy:Re: Scope. Each GNSO question in our charter uses the "using the domain name for [X]" syntax. I don't see a way to read the use of the domain name out of our remit.
Kiran Malancharuvil:I would support that Steve. Commercial entities should be allowed to use p/p for non-commercial purposes
John Horton:Steve, don't want to jump the queue, but happy to suggest an answer there based on the paper.
Libby Baney:@Steve re timing of distinction, see page 26-27 of the paper
Libby Baney:@John, feel free to chime in
Libby Baney:@Stephanie - I'd welcome and appreciate your edits. You've been very helpful o these issues
Kiran Malancharuvil:Why would we be uncomfortable with research presented (in response to a request)
Kiran Malancharuvil:and can you please submit your response rather than just ask for it to be taken off the table?
Kathy K:Steve, could you please share again the view of the IPC or CSG that you posted at the end of meeting last week (in the chat room, I think)
Bladel:@Don - Agree.
Kiran Malancharuvil:There hasn't been a consensus developed in the IPC that I'm aware of
Stephanie Perrin:Unfortunately, being free to submit anything, means we are going to spend the rest of our lives here.
Bladel:But then the paper(s) should be treated on par with any ohter comment submitted to the list.
steve metalitz:Agree with Don that contributions like the paper are welcomed. Although I do not agree with its conclusions.
Bladel:which was my opnion.
Stephanie Perrin:To what extent does ICANN have ambitions to regulate all activity on the internet
Libby Baney:@John - agreed, welcome feedback
steve metalitz:The IPC osition is set forth in the template for C1.
Libby Baney:@all - re the paper being "dropped" on the group, I just want to note for the record that the group essentially gave us a week to provide argument as to why the distinction is worthwhile... we got the paper out as fast as possible in response to last week's discussion
Kathy K:Tx Steve
John Horton:Right -- I should have mentioned that as well, Libby.
Kiran Malancharuvil:It's REALLY disturbing the level of hyperbole that exists here in an effort to attempt to silence discussion on this issue (and it would be disturbing on any issue). "We will be here for the rest of our lives" or we are attempting to "regulate all activity"
Kiran Malancharuvil:discussion, in the form of a papers or discussion should ALWAYS be welcome
Kiran Malancharuvil:that's the nature of ICANN
Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Libby... what a shame that you were asked to provide it and then chastised for following through
Libby Baney:@thanks for the support Kiran
Stephanie Perrin:Frankly, Idont regard regulate all activity as hyperbole. AS MIchele said earlier, determining the ongoing purpose and use of domain names or email used by registrants strikes me as an interminable exercise, new every morning as it were. So given that task falling on the shoulders of the registrars, either they give up on that line of business, or they lose money providing the purpose detection function.
Don Blumenthal:Kiran, overstatement is part of the process from all sides in any contentioius ICANN
Don Blumenthal:discussion
Kiran Malancharuvil:I understand that Don, but that doesn't mean I have to be okay with it.
Don Blumenthal:Stephanie and John, please clear your raised hands.
John Horton:Oops. Thanks, Don.
Michele Neylon:Why would we reveal to an out of jurisdiction request?
Michele Neylon:respond - sure
Val Sherman:+1 @Steve
Michele Neylon:but I don't see why I should give the Chinese government my clients' details
Michele Neylon:or did I mishear him?
Luc Seufer:because there may be another ICANN meeting held in China in the future. And we don't want to lose our chair
Luc Seufer:;-)
Don Blumenthal:I appreciate it. :)
Bladel:California? :)
Luc Seufer:The UK?
steve metalitz:we're talking here about whether they respond ,not whether they answer yes. That will be a topic for e.g. reveal.
Kathy K:Is there any concern or opposition to posting a point of contact to the world for p/p contact?
Kathy K:Tx All
Luc Seufer:Thanks
David Cake:Thank you Don, and everyone.
Michele Neylon:kathy - short answer - no
Darcy Southwell:Thank you!