PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)
Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
4.1.2 - I worry that the key phrase in future legal analysis here is not "reasonably refused" but "without limitations." Therefore, the inclusion of the phrase "without limitations" effectively translates into "arbitrarily refused" or "refused because we are going to refuse all of these requests no matter how reliable they seem." Is there some other more limited language that can be used to convey what you all are trying to do here? On 4.1.2.5, it is hard to see how the Provider is going to investigate the emergency request and make the determination that it is not "well founded." Are Providers going to send agents to the requesting country to do their own investigation? Are Providers going to simply refuse all requests from certain countries? If so, based on what evidence? Is the fact that a Provider's own local law enforcement vouched for the request by transmitting it to the provider not sufficient? Again, is there some other phrase, a little more clearly and narrowly tailored that can provide the protection the Providers seek? On 4.1.6, I don't understand what we are trying to do here. Local laws always apply (see 4.1.2.2), so whose due process does this refer to? And since the request is being passed to the provider through local law enforcement, doesn't that mean that local legal requirements, including local due process, have already been met? And if the provider does not trust local law enforcement, how is this language going to improve that? It reads like 4.1.2, which is that it could be interpreted to mean that no emergency requests will ever be responded to. 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
I'm going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours). 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
I think we are not at this stage yet Peter. As mentioned before, I think the scope of the recommendations will be caught up in reality real soon and turn the entire thing out of scope. Theo On 1-5-2018 21:54, Roman, Peter (CRM) wrote:
I’m going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours).
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
peter.roman@usdoj.gov <mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov>
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)
Dear Colleagues,
Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn’t a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed.
I’ve attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT.
_For reference, those sections and issues are:_
*Section 3.3.1* (time period for responses to high-priority requests)—it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item
*Section 4.1.2: *The proposed addition of “without limitations,” either here or moved to Section 4.1.4.
*Section 4.1.2.5.: *The proposed addition of this section in its entirety.
*Section 4.1.6: *The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere.
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 <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>
www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Then the version of the document put out for discussion here in the IRT should reflect the three choices, for the same reasons. 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> From: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:05 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org; Roman, Peter (CRM) <Peter.Roman@CRM.USDOJ.GOV> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) I think we are not at this stage yet Peter. As mentioned before, I think the scope of the recommendations will be caught up in reality real soon and turn the entire thing out of scope. Theo On 1-5-2018 21:54, Roman, Peter (CRM) wrote: I'm going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours). 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Hi Roman, I am putting on the record that I support 1 business day, I certainly find it unacceptable for immediate as it simply is not workable. Also to take into consideration is if the actual law enforcement in the local jurisdiction of the registrar works that fast in the first place. Kind regards, Chris From: "Roman, Peter (CRM)" <Peter.Roman@usdoj.gov> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 1 May, 2018 20:54:20 Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) I’m going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours). 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn’t a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I’ve attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)—it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of “without limitations,” either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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 www.icann.org _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
My Apologies Peter, I called you by your surname in the last email. Kind regards, Chris From: "Chris Pelling" <chris@netearth.net> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 1 May, 2018 21:06:04 Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Hi Roman, I am putting on the record that I support 1 business day, I certainly find it unacceptable for immediate as it simply is not workable. Also to take into consideration is if the actual law enforcement in the local jurisdiction of the registrar works that fast in the first place. Kind regards, Chris From: "Roman, Peter (CRM)" <Peter.Roman@usdoj.gov> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 1 May, 2018 20:54:20 Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) I’m going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours). 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn’t a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I’ve attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)—it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of “without limitations,” either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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 www.icann.org _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Thanks Chris. FWIW, whether the “actual law enforcement in the local jurisdiction of the registrar works that fast in the first place” is irrelevant to the discussion. The 24 hour response time only applies to the time that the Provider actually has control over, from when the provider receives the request until the provider responds. How much time the local LE takes to do their part is not part of the calculation. 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:06 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Hi Roman, I am putting on the record that I support 1 business day, I certainly find it unacceptable for immediate as it simply is not workable. Also to take into consideration is if the actual law enforcement in the local jurisdiction of the registrar works that fast in the first place. Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "Roman, Peter (CRM)" <Peter.Roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:Peter.Roman@usdoj.gov>> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 1 May, 2018 20:54:20 Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) I’m going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours). 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 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May) Dear Colleagues, Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn’t a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed. I’ve attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT. For reference, those sections and issues are: Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)—it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of “without limitations,” either here or moved to Section 4.1.4. Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety. Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere. 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<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
participants (4)
-
Amy Bivins -
Chris Pelling -
Roman, Peter (CRM) -
theo geurts