4 August 2015
- Mary Wong
Analytics
The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 04 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/
Proposed Agenda:
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Status updates: (i) preliminary report from Sub Team 2 (on Section 1.3.3) (Lindsay Hamilton Reid & Terri Stumme); (ii) check-in/timeline updates from Sub Team 3 (on Annex E) and Sub Team 4 (on Additional Topics)
- WG discussion: items for WG review from public comments on WG preliminary recommendations #1 through #9 (see Public Comment Review Tool Part 1, circulated previously)
- Administration: (i) possible F2F meeting in Dublin; (ii) duration of WG calls
- Next steps
Documents for Review:
Sub Team List & Members (as of 3 August 2015)
PPSAI Public Comment Review Tool v1 Pt 1 (as of 20 July 2015)
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-04aug15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsai-04aug15-en.pdf
Attendees:
Graeme Bunton RrSG
Val Sherman IPC
Kathy Kleiman NCSG
Stephanie Perrin NCSG
Phil Corwin BC
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
Michele Neylon RrSG
Holly Raiche ALAC
Steve Metalitz – IPC
James Gannon NCUC
Sarah Wyld – RrSG
David Heasley - IPC
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Darcy Southwell – RrSG
Rudi Vansnick – NPOC
Luc Seufer – RrSG
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Susan Kawaguchi – BC
Apologies:
Alex Deacon IPC
Susan Prosser – RrSG
James Bladel RrSG
Dick Leaning – Individual
Paul McGrady IPC
Kiran Malancharuvil- IPC
Marika Konings -Staff
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Amy Bivins
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 04 August 2015
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG call taking place on 4th August 2015
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello allç
Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo, hello everybody
Terri Agnew:Welcome Vicky Sheckler
Terri Agnew:Finding line
Terri Agnew:Welcome Lindsay Hamilton-Reid
Mary Wong:The agenda is in the right hand pod
Terri Agnew:Welcome Phil Corwin
Graeme Bunton:it's there, need to scroll that pane up
Terri Agnew:Welcome Rudi Vansnick
Stephanie Perrin:did we lose sound or is noone talkng?
Mary Wong:Audio is on, Stephanie
Michele Neylon:sound working fine here
Terri Agnew:Welcome James Gannon
Kathy K:Hi All
Terri Agnew:Welcome Kathy Kleiman
Kathy K:I think Subteam 2 is still pretty new...
Kathy K:I appreciate the summary, but there is so much more to do!!
Michele Neylon:Oddly enough that's the question I would have asked
Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer
Terri Agnew:Welcome David Cake
James Gannon (Listen Only):Good methodology Lindsay very clear and easy to get a feel for the comments
Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels
Carlton Samuels:Howdy all. My apologies for the late boarding
James Gannon (Listen Only):I think Kathys point is that the SDP commenters should be relevent to 1.3.3
Vicky Sheckler:isn't that the reason we have the subgroup 4?
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Thanks James.
Graeme Bunton:SDP comments are NOT templated
Graeme Bunton:There was no prepopulated text, and text was optional
Kathy K:New hand, Steve, response to Mary
Mary Wong:@Graeme, apologies - as I mentioned, we also did not include "petition based" submissions.
Mary Wong:As noted, we were not certain that should be a staff decision to include or not.
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:We should look at all comments in relation to the questions. It may mean extending all the timescales.
Carlton Samuels:@Holly: The "Nos" have it!
Vicky Sheckler:+1 w/ steve metalitz' comments
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: I agree its not a 'plebiscite'. But I'm thinking since we asked the question, the responses should be seen at least as 'the sense of the room'.
Don Blumenthal:Please go on mute if you are not speaking.
Volker A. Greimann:I object to the comment or characterization of any comments as machine-generated.
Michele Neylon:audio is not very clear
Volker A. Greimann:On knowledge and belief, every comment and signature was made by a live human
Mary Wong:Just to clarify - staff did not mean to exclude anyone; we just did not believe we should decide on what to do with petition and template-based submissions. We are happy to add/include if that is what the WG decides.
Vicky Sheckler:i object to how the document that solicited the comments was misledaing the failure of this group to address this.
David Cake:I strongly agree with Michele
Carlton Samuels:@Michele +1.
Sara Bockey:+1 Michele
Frank Michlick:Michele +1
Volker A. Greimann:"misleading the the failure of this group to address this"? What does that mean, Vicky?
Luc Seufer:Exactly. Disregarding the voice of those users would go against the spirit of ICANN PDP
Frank Michlick:If you consider any of the comments machine generated you better be able to back up that claim.
David Cake:Of course they are not machine generated etc. Every single one of those signatures was (as far as we know) a real, genuine person.
Vicky Sheckler:please see the COA comments about problems with how the petition comments were generated
Volker A. Greimann:how is reaching out to the users of these services different from the usual campaigns to flood the comments with identical form letters by the IP?
Terri Agnew:@James, we are unable to hear you. Let me know if a dial out is needed.
Volker A. Greimann:they were not generated, Vicky, they were submitted
James Gannon:go ahead
James Gannon:mic problems
Michele Neylon:Kathy - you might be too close to your mic
Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1 ICANN remains challenged to reach end users. As a standing member of the At-Large I am very familiar with the challenges in this area
Vicky Sheckler:Volker - please read the COA comments. misleading the public to obtain comments is a concern that we need to consider.
Graeme Bunton:Breaking up a bit James
Frank Michlick:audio is cuting out
Carlton Samuels:James is breaking up in my ear
Volker A. Greimann:Just because you do not agree with the points made does not make them misleading
Vicky Sheckler:the fact that the peittion did not accurately explain the document does make it misleading. please read the COA comments for a full discretion of the problems.
Mary Wong:@James, it will now be for each Sub Team to decide how /where to add the relevant comments.
Sara Bockey:+1 James G
James Gannon:Sorry for bad audio
Kathy K:old hand
Carlton Samuels:@James: Yes, there should be space to address and analyze themes that are not related to specific questions. The comments must be embraced and analyzed.
Volker A. Greimann:the petition linked to the report very clearly. summarizing all of it was necessry
Vicky Sheckler:+1 val
Volker A. Greimann:have you read the report? it is very long!
Luc Seufer:The provider campaign was public, could we see the material presented to IP holders by IPC members and also be provided with proof that they all read the report?
James Gannon:We dont double guess the primary sources for other commenters opinoins, I do not agree with us doing it in this case.
val sherman:Yes i have Volker. Several times.
Kathy K:Tx Val! @Mary, can we include the petition and template now?
Mary Wong:@Kathy, each Sub Team can add as they decide.
Volker A. Greimann:val, do you expect every commenter to do so?
Kathy K:@Mary, when staff leaves these comments out of the template they are very easy to overlook
Vicky Sheckler:+1 todd
Volker A. Greimann:not everyone who is invested in his privacy has the time (or is paid for his time) to read all that
val sherman:I hope that commenters have access to a fair representation of the contents of the report when commenting on its substance
David Cake:Strongly expressed opinions should be respected.
Vicky Sheckler:which makes it incumbent upon us in the workign group to not mislead ppl when / if we solicit comments from others
James Gannon:To a point I agree Todd, my primary issue with my interevention was our making classifications of commenters. Our analysis of each comment will then give us that weighting to each comment depending on its substance.
Holly Raiche:I think it is important to at least note the number of comments made against the relevant points of the report - and agree with Wolker and Stephannie - not everyone is familiar with - or has the time tobe familiar with - the report. But they do have legitimate concerns that should be taken into account
Volker A. Greimann:I do not see pointing out potential consequenses as misleading
David Cake:We should not be finding reasons to downgrade public comments.
Sara Bockey:I don't think it's a fair assumption that if someone signs a petition they are not informed and somehow their voice is of less value.
James Gannon:+1 Sara, we solicit Public Comment, lets not fail here when we recive a public response
David Cake:And comments not appreciating the level of balance is not a reason to ignore them. If there are many comments indicating that the balance we ahve strick is inappropriate, that is a reason to reassess our balance, not dismiss comments.
val sherman:old
val sherman:sorry!
Luc Seufer:SDP website points to the report https://www.savedomainprivacy.org/what-can-you-do-how-can-you-get-involved/ I don't see how it is misleading
Kathy K:@Mary, in that case can we include them now??
Mary Wong:@Kathy, as mentioned, each Sub Team can add according to their methodology.
Michele Neylon:+1 Stephanie
Sara Bockey:+1 Stephanie
Volker A. Greimann:in the end, we cannot judge on how the comments came about. For all we know everyone could have read the report, or enough of it.
James Gannon:+1 Stephanie
Volker A. Greimann:A comment is a comment, like it or not
Michele Neylon:The bias argument is nutty
Michele Neylon:Sorry, but we all have opinions and interests
Luc Seufer:IMO a comment is by definition biased
Kathy K:@Mary, it's not a subteam issue, its a fair reporting issue. These comments belong in the template. It's the choice of the subteam on how to weight and report these comments, but not the subteam view on how to include them in the first place
Michele Neylon:I don't see how any of us could present a topic we have an opinion about in a neutral fashion
Don Blumenthal:FWIW, a more balanced piece from Mark Jeftovic at OpenDNShttp://www.circleid.com/posts/20150703_confessions_of_an_ex_opponent_of_whois_privacy/
Mary Wong:@Kathy, how would you like staff to address this?
val sherman:We are not talking about the comments being biased; the campaigns were biased, one-sided and imo, misleading.
Volker A. Greimann:that was a good article
Volker A. Greimann:I think it is part of the comments too
Mary Wong:@Volker, yes - he submitted it as a public comment.
Volker A. Greimann:it was submitted in some form
Volker A. Greimann:thanks Mary
James Gannon:Great points Phil.
Holly Raiche:@ Phil +1
Kathy K:@Mary, tx for asking. As you added Turner Broadcasting, I would add another line to 1.3.3, question 1, after 86 to list the Save Domain Privact comment -- what they said and how they said it.
Mary Wong:@Kathy, thanks for clarifying. My reason for asking is what @Lindsay is raising - depending on how the Sub Teams want to handle these comemnts, it could be a lot of work requiring additional volunteers.
Volker A. Greimann:"other mass comments" is better...
Kathy K:+1 Steve - I agree that #1 answers resolve this issue
James Gannon:I think we still need to add them to the analysis process, just as a matter of correct process for analysis, we have the eyes of the world on this lets make sure that we do this right.
Holly Raiche:@ Volker - instead of 'mass' what about a number of similar comments made
Holly Raiche:Clarigy - put the number of comments made aginst each comment
Volker A. Greimann:BTW, I am eworking on a alternate proposal to an accreditation and hope to have a draft by next week
Volker A. Greimann:no guarantees though
James Gannon:A number of us have had conflcts during this week so I think the worlk will kick off next week for SubTeam 4
Stephanie Perrin:+1 James G
Kathy K:Tx Holly
Volker A. Greimann:holly, I said better, not good ;-)
Kathy K:I don't think we have reviewed this Steve
Kathy K:As the subteams are so busy...
James Gannon:I think the WG responses will be essentially coming out of the findings of the subteams in many ways
Mary Wong:@James, we have 20 prelim recommendations and only some are being dealt with by the Sub Teams, who are largely focusing on the open questions.
Holly Raiche:I'd be happy to attend if it is called
Sara Bockey:(yes) = yes if needed
Stephanie Perrin:We are being asked by ICANN travel to commit by Monday, so it would be good to have a decision.
Kathy K:Is it needed?
Philip Corwin:I also checked (yes) by which I meant open to attending if that was group consensus, and not strongly opposed
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Agreed Phil
Holly Raiche:Yes, ICANN wants travel decisions for us by Monday
Stephanie Perrin:My comment is that there was such a groundswell of public comment that we may owe it to our public to have a decent meeting at Dublin
Kathy K:But this F2F meeting is not our public meeting, in Dublin, right?
Chris Pelling:I also agree a meeting in dublin would be good
James Gannon:Correct Kathy
Chris Pelling:F2F certainly
Michele Neylon:they're two different things
Michele Neylon:F 2 F = group only
Sara Bockey:I agree with James' point. I think it will likely be needed
Kathy K:One occurs early and the other occurs in the formal meeting schedule
Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - yes - separate from the public one
Mary Wong:@Michele, yes, correct
Carlton Samuels: I will have to be remote for a f2f. I can't be there unless funded
Stephanie Perrin:Yes but the Friday meeting would be open to those who wish to show up, correct?
Philip Corwin:F2F might be good preparation for what could be a contentious public meeting a few days later
Holly Raiche:ICANN needs a gravel decision by next Monday
Chris Pelling:Friday before I would not be able to make. As travelling to Dublin that day
Graeme Bunton:Staff would LOVE us to decide ASAP
James Gannon:=)
Stephanie Perrin:I think we should decide today, otherwise those of us who cannot attend without funding, will not be there
Chris Pelling:I would not be able to make it then
Sara Bockey:Noon would be better
James Gannon:I would offer the suggestion that we go ahead with planning this personally due to the due dates for travel confirmations
Sara Bockey:unlesss you don't want me to shower... after long flight
Stephanie Perrin:Monday Mary
Rudi Vansnick:i have to leave for another call starting in about 2 minutes, I will be in Dublin on Friday 16th so no issue if attending the meeting is required
Holly Raiche:Agree - the earlier the beter, but please, a decision ASAP
Stephanie Perrin:Some of us are awfully cranky after an all night flight sitting bolt upright in economy
Chris Pelling:Im off for another call - thanks guys
Sara Bockey:I'm off to another call as well. thank you all.
Holly Raiche:PLEASE - a decision on the F@F
Don Blumenthal:Question. What's the value of F2F if we do only part of day?
Stephanie Perrin:+1 Holly
Mary Wong:@Don, the idea was 11 a.m. to 6 or 6.30 p.m.
Kathy K:I still don't know what the F2F is for... what issues will still be open?
Mary Wong:As several people said they're coming in overnight
Graeme Bunton:That's my impression, Steve
Stephanie Perrin:@Kathy all of them at the rate we are going....
Mary Wong:@Kathy, it may change but the Work Plan envisages certain topics for discussion
Kathy K:Tx Steve!
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid 2:Thanks all.
Philip Corwin:Bye all
val sherman:Thanks Steve, thanks all!
Carlton Samuels:Thanks all
James Gannon:thanks all
Graeme Bunton:thanks all
Michele Neylon:bye