Hi all, Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.2 for now this language needs to go. LEA's and CPH's must address this issue in a different manner. We talked about setting up a database or some sorts in Dublin. The LEA's have a hard time to reach the correct departments at the Registrars and Registries, and the CPH's have a hard time to identify all these LEA requests if they are legit or not, sometimes this process takes more than 72 hours, wich is insane, but sadly a reality. This problem needs to be tackled and if executed well, you do not need sections like 3.1.1 and 3.2.2 in my opinion. Best regards, Theo Geurts Amy Bivins schreef op 2017-06-19 07:54 PM:

Thanks, Greg!

What do others think of these proposals?

I'll note that in 4.2.2.3, this language, including the word "will" is copied from the text of the Final Report, p. 16 (last line before "Deaccreditation and Its Consequences" section.

FROM: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF DiBiase, Gregory via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl SENT: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:35 PM TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached

Hi Amy,

A couple more comments on the revised draft:

- 3.2.1: It's unclear if the two business day deadline for a response applies to "High Priority Requests". 4.1.2 still says 24 hours for High Priority Requests to be "actioned". We should revise 4.1.2 to change the 24 hour period to two business days or revise 3.2.1 to say "Except as provided in 4.1.2, within two business days…"

- 4.2.2.3: Change "circumstances showing that disclosure _will _endanger safety" to "circumstances showing that disclosure _may _ endanger safety"

Thanks,

Greg

FROM: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Amy Bivins SENT: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 8:10 AM TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks so much for your active participation on yesterday's call. Pursuant to the IRT's discussion yesterday on the PSWG proposal, I'm attaching a first draft of a markup of the PSWG proposal for your review. Please review and provide any additional suggested edits or comments that you would like to discuss on next week's call no later than your EOD Monday (but earlier is better!).

I'm also attaching a summary of all of your comments from yesterday's discussion, as well as a document detailing all of your prior input on this proposal.

The goal is to finalize this discussion draft shortly after next week's call (20 June) so that it can be distributed to the PSWG in preparation for the IRT/PSWG meeting at ICANN59.

For those who could not attend, I encourage you to listen to the call recording (available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p1zlpvjfw5i/). Unfortunately, there is a problem with the last 10-12 minutes of the recording, with the host and participant audio not recording in sync, but you can still hear most of what was said during the meeting.

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 [1]

Links: ------ [1] 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

Hi Theo, We can discuss on the call today. I'm not sure how this would work to not have anything about an LEA contact in the framework so it would be great if you could share more about your thinking on the call. Thanks! Amy Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 20, 2017, at 5:27 AM, gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:

Hi all,

Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.2 for now this language needs to go. LEA's and CPH's must address this issue in a different manner. We talked about setting up a database or some sorts in Dublin.

The LEA's have a hard time to reach the correct departments at the Registrars and Registries, and the CPH's have a hard time to identify all these LEA requests if they are legit or not, sometimes this process takes more than 72 hours, wich is insane, but sadly a reality.

This problem needs to be tackled and if executed well, you do not need sections like 3.1.1 and 3.2.2 in my opinion.

Best regards,

Theo Geurts

Amy Bivins schreef op 2017-06-19 07:54 PM:

...

Thanks, Greg! What do others think of these proposals? I'll note that in 4.2.2.3, this language, including the word "will" is copied from the text of the Final Report, p. 16 (last line before "Deaccreditation and Its Consequences" section. FROM: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF DiBiase, Gregory via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl SENT: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:35 PM TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached Hi Amy, A couple more comments on the revised draft: - 3.2.1: It's unclear if the two business day deadline for a response applies to "High Priority Requests". 4.1.2 still says 24 hours for High Priority Requests to be "actioned". We should revise 4.1.2 to change the 24 hour period to two business days or revise 3.2.1 to say "Except as provided in 4.1.2, within two business days…" - 4.2.2.3: Change "circumstances showing that disclosure _will _endanger safety" to "circumstances showing that disclosure _may _ endanger safety" Thanks, Greg FROM: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Amy Bivins SENT: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 8:10 AM TO: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on yesterday's call. Pursuant to the IRT's discussion yesterday on the PSWG proposal, I'm attaching a first draft of a markup of the PSWG proposal for your review. Please review and provide any additional suggested edits or comments that you would like to discuss on next week's call no later than your EOD Monday (but earlier is better!). I'm also attaching a summary of all of your comments from yesterday's discussion, as well as a document detailing all of your prior input on this proposal. The goal is to finalize this discussion draft shortly after next week's call (20 June) so that it can be distributed to the PSWG in preparation for the IRT/PSWG meeting at ICANN59. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to listen to the call recording (available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p1zlpvjfw5i/). Unfortunately, there is a problem with the last 10-12 minutes of the recording, with the host and participant audio not recording in sync, but you can still hear most of what was said during the meeting. 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 [1] Links: ------ [1] 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

---

Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

Greg, on your first comment, are you proposing to collapse the PSWG's two-step process (24 hours to acknowledge, 24 hours to "action" a high priority request) into one (two business days to acknowledge and "action," which I assume means a substantive response --- disclosure, refusal to disclose (stating reason), or asking for more time? [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:55 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory; gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached Thanks, Greg! What do others think of these proposals? I'll note that in 4.2.2.3, this language, including the word "will" is copied from the text of the Final Report, p. 16 (last line before "Deaccreditation and Its Consequences" section. From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of DiBiase, Gregory via Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:35 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached Hi Amy, A couple more comments on the revised draft: - 3.2.1: It's unclear if the two business day deadline for a response applies to "High Priority Requests". 4.1.2 still says 24 hours for High Priority Requests to be "actioned". We should revise 4.1.2 to change the 24 hour period to two business days or revise 3.2.1 to say "Except as provided in 4.1.2, within two business days..." - 4.2.2.3:<http://4.2.2.3:> Change "circumstances showing that disclosure will endanger safety" to "circumstances showing that disclosure may endanger safety" Thanks, Greg From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 8:10 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Please Review: PP IRT draft v1 redline of PSWG proposal attached Dear Colleagues, Thanks so much for your active participation on yesterday's call. Pursuant to the IRT's discussion yesterday on the PSWG proposal, I'm attaching a first draft of a markup of the PSWG proposal for your review. Please review and provide any additional suggested edits or comments that you would like to discuss on next week's call no later than your EOD Monday (but earlier is better!). I'm also attaching a summary of all of your comments from yesterday's discussion, as well as a document detailing all of your prior input on this proposal. The goal is to finalize this discussion draft shortly after next week's call (20 June) so that it can be distributed to the PSWG in preparation for the IRT/PSWG meeting at ICANN59. For those who could not attend, I encourage you to listen to the call recording (available on the wiki, https://participate.icann.org/p1zlpvjfw5i/<https://participate.icann.org/p1zlpvjfw5i/>). Unfortunately, there is a problem with the last 10-12 minutes of the recording, with the host and participant audio not recording in sync, but you can still hear most of what was said during the meeting. 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>