Thanks, Peter, for your input on this. I’m noticing that while you aren’t happy with the proposed one business day requirement, you didn’t say that it’s a definite non-starter, either. Perhaps there
is some room for compromise.
Sara and other registrars who supported Sara’s proposed language, how would you feel about trimming the proposal to account for the discussion on Tuesday about points that are already covered elsewhere
in the framework? If we did that, it would look something like this (edit to Sara’s proposal in redline):
4.1.2 Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, LEA will make every effort to contact the Provider directly to discuss the matter,
and should it be determined that Provider has useful information, Provider shall use its best efforts to action the request within one business day., noting that a court order/subpoena may still be required prior to release
of any information. Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law.
As proposed below, we could also update 3.1 to make abundantly clear that this is a direct LEA contact to the provider’s designated LEA contact, which may be an email address, form, phone number, or any other
means the provider has shared with LEA. There must be a way for LEA to obtain the designated contact via the website (even instructions to call the provider’s main number would seem to satisfy this request) but the contact itself does not have to be posted
on the website.
3.1 Pre‐Request: Provider will establish and maintain a designated LEA Requestor point of contact for submitting disclosure requests. Provider shall publish on its website the designated contact (e.g. email address,
telephone number, form) or other means for LEA to obtain designated LEA contact information).
If the language looked like this, for compliance purposes we could use some additional clarity about what it means for a provider to “use its best efforts to action the request within one business day.”
Sara and other registrars who support this proposal, if we kept the “one business day” standard, would you be able to compromise by editing this a bit to make clear that a human (non-automated) response would
be required within one business day of receipt of the request (perhaps by simply reverting to the word “action” if we were to clearly define that as discussed previously)?
Peter, what would you and your PSWG colleagues think about this?
Thanks, all for your continued attention to this matter. Hopefully, we can reach a conclusion on this while many of you are at ICANN61 in Puerto Rico.
I’ll note that the poll is still open through EOD Friday, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CMGF8FZ. As of now, there are 18 responses. Four IRT members support raising this issue to the Council, and 14 oppose that
(including some registrars).
Best,
Amy
From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Roman, Peter (CRM)
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 1:08 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's IRT call
Peter Roman
Senior Counsel
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
1301 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-1323
From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:42 AM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Action items from today's IRT call
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. If you couldn’t attend, I encourage you to listen to the recording,
https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/06+March+2018
If you haven’t already, please complete the IRT poll regarding the potential policy implications surrounding the IRT discussions on the LEA framework specification no later than Friday,
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CMGF8FZ Currently, two IRT members have indicated that they believe the issue should be escalated to the Council. Fourteen responded that this should not be escalated to the
Council at this stage.
Today, we solicited any additional feedback related to the draft reporting specification. I’ve attached a draft with some notes indicating the feedback received to date. We will begin updating the specification based on this feedback, and
will consider any additional feedback received between now and the end of the IRT session at ICANN61 in updating the draft.
We also discussed a proposal from Sara Bockey on-list, which has been supported by several other registrar members of the IRT, for alternative language for the LEA Framework Specification.
The proposed language is:
4.1.2
Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, this
must be actioned within 24 hours. The LEA Requestor will detail the
threat type and justification for a request with a Priority Level of High Priority.
Where a disclosure request has been categorized as High Priority, LEA will make every effort to contact the Provider directly to discuss the matter, and should it be determined that Provider has useful information, Provider shall
use its best efforts to action the request within one business day, noting that a court order/subpoena may still be required prior to release of any information. Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law.
Based on the discussion today, it’s possible that an edit could potentially be made in Section 3.1, to eliminate the perceived need for the “contact the Provider directly” language, such as: 3.1 Pre‐Request:
Provider will establish and maintain a designated LEA Requestor point of contact for submitting disclosure requests. Provider shall publish on its website the designated contact (e.g. email address, telephone number, form)
or other means for LEA to obtain designated LEA contact information).
I’ll note that because LEA are not a party to this contract, I don’t think they could be required via this contract to “make every effort,” so that may be a point to consider. Also, the draft already states,
at Section 4.2.2.2 that a Provider can refuse disclosure if the disclosure would lead to a contravention of applicable law. Concerns have also been raised about the “best efforts” language.
IRT feedback is requested on-list on the above proposed language. If IRT members who oppose the current PSWG-proposed text can reach agreement on proposed language, this can be published for public comment. This
will be on the agenda for the session on Sunday at ICANN61. A full agenda will be distributed later this week. In addition, if the IRT would like to discuss any items from the updated PPAA draft in Puerto Rico, please let me know.
Best,
Amy
Amy E. Bivins
Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
Registrar Services and Industry Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
Email:
amy.bivins@icann.org