Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5 (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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>
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5 (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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>
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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>
All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net<http://www.onlineaccountability.net> [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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>
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
**
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
**
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
/Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. /
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
/Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? /
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
/Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. /
//
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
/Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. /
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>* 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
**
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Apologies for the late reply in providing some feedback. Comments following Sara's comments from 19 April: - Inclusion of "without limitations" in section 4.2.2 - I agree with Sara here. Ideally again it is to cover the Provider from potential instances that we here in this IRT may not be recognizing here. - 4.2.2.5 being potentially redundant - I believe this should be removed if IRT does find to be redundant. While I do appreciate Sara's comments, if we do all agree there is duplication here with the statement, best we remove to clear any potential confusion that could come later (thinking when we may not necessarily remember why we had this added in the first place). - 4.2.6 - I agree that this is not redundant and should still be kept, but open to having it included elsewhere within section 4.2 if majority feels it would be better represented. - As for the timeframe, agree that one business day should be our default. Thanks Eric *Eric Rokobauer* Sr. Registrar Compliance Manager | Endurance International Group 10 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Burlington MA 01803 T - 781.852.3445 E - eric.rokobauer@endurance.com On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
*[image: image001]*
*Steven J. Metalitz *| *Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
*Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. *
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
*Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? *
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
*Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. *
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
*Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. *
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy™*
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <sbockey@godaddy.com>* 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
*This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.*
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
*Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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 listGdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
Agreed with Eric and Sara, 4.2.6, we could move that one around some. 4.2.2.5, I rather keep it in, it does not hurt and I 100% agree, democracy is not a given. Theo On 30-4-2018 21:05, Eric Rokobauer wrote:
Apologies for the late reply in providing some feedback. Comments following Sara's comments from 19 April:
* Inclusion of "without limitations" in section 4.2.2 - I agree with Sara here. Ideally again it is to cover the Provider from potential instances that we here in this IRT may not be recognizing here.
* 4.2.2.5 being potentially redundant - I believe this should be removed if IRT does find to be redundant. While I do appreciate Sara's comments, if we do all agree there is duplication here with the statement, best we remove to clear any potential confusion that could come later (thinking when we may not necessarily remember why we had this added in the first place).
* 4.2.6 - I agree that this is not redundant and should still be kept, but open to having it included elsewhere within section 4.2 if majority feels it would be better represented.
* As for the timeframe, agree that one business day should be our default.
Thanks Eric
*/Eric Rokobauer/* Sr. Registrar Compliance Manager | Endurance International Group 10 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Burlington MA 01803 T - 781.852.3445 E -eric.rokobauer@endurance.com <mailto:eric.rokobauer@endurance.com>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
**
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
**
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
/Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. /
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
/Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? /
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
/Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. /
//
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
/Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. /
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>*480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
**
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
Apologies for the late input on this topic. There is a lot to catch up on when efforts are focused elsewhere :) I support and fully agree with Sara’s comments and proposed edits. I also agree with Theo and think that clause 4.2.2.5 should be kept in the document due to it providing protection in less democratic areas of the world. Being from a region and country where LEA does not always understand what it needs to do, what it is allowed to do, or how to do it (follow due process), clause 4.2.2.5 gives me some sense of security that I am encouraged to review the request without potentially jumping to action for a fraudulent or unlawful request. Kind Regards, Vlad Dinculescu ———————— DNS Africa Ltd
On 30 Apr 2018, at 9:27 PM, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Agreed with Eric and Sara, 4.2.6, we could move that one around some.
4.2.2.5, I rather keep it in, it does not hurt and I 100% agree, democracy is not a given. Theo
On 30-4-2018 21:05, Eric Rokobauer wrote:
Apologies for the late reply in providing some feedback. Comments following Sara's comments from 19 April: Inclusion of "without limitations" in section 4.2.2 - I agree with Sara here. Ideally again it is to cover the Provider from potential instances that we here in this IRT may not be recognizing here. 4.2.2.5 being potentially redundant - I believe this should be removed if IRT does find to be redundant. While I do appreciate Sara's comments, if we do all agree there is duplication here with the statement, best we remove to clear any potential confusion that could come later (thinking when we may not necessarily remember why we had this added in the first place). 4.2.6 - I agree that this is not redundant and should still be kept, but open to having it included elsewhere within section 4.2 if majority feels it would be better represented. As for the timeframe, agree that one business day should be our default. Thanks Eric Eric Rokobauer Sr. Registrar Compliance Manager | Endurance International Group 10 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Burlington MA 01803 T - 781.852.3445 E - eric.rokobauer@endurance.com <mailto:eric.rokobauer@endurance.com>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All, <>
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net/>
<image001.gif>
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2.
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5/> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play?
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation.
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first.
sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues, <>
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
IRT Action Items
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:
Original Numbering
Reorganized Version
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5/> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl>
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate. The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement. Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions. The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not. 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net<http://www.onlineaccountability.net> [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Peter, I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing. Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours. And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers. If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose? Volker Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate.
The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement.
Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions.
The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not.
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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
**
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
**
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
/Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. /
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
/Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? /
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
/Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. /
//
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
/Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. /
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>* 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
**
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours. Peter Roman Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave.<x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Hi Peter, I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing. Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours. And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers. If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose? Volker Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate. The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement. Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions. The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not. 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net<http://www.onlineaccountability.net> <image001.gif> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
While that may be accurate, it does not change the fact that you expect some poor sap to sit on a chair on a week-end or holiday, or at least refrain from any activity that may result in a longer unavailability on the odd one-in-a-million chance that someone from a LEA in their jurisdiction may immediately need some information only they can provide. And it is not like a PPS is providing a basic utility where you would have to have someone on call already. While what you are asking is certainly a "nice-to-have", it is unreasonable and commercially unfeasible to expect that kind of readiness from what is essentially a low margin, low effort service. Unless your goal is pushing PPS providers out of business or underground... Again: Without this accreditation, you have nothing. No obligation to respond, ever! Now you get a business day turnaround. Wouldn't you agree that this is the better option of the two? ICANN works on consensus. Without consensus, you have nothing. By asking for the unreasonable, you risk that consensus that exists on most other issues. Would you rather have nothing? Volker Greimann Am 03.05.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours.
Peter Roman
Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323 peter.roman@usdoj.gov <mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov>
On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Hi Peter,
I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing.
Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours.
And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers.
If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose?
Volker
Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate.
The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement.
Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions.
The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not.
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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
**
*<image001.gif>*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
**
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
/Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. /
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
/Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? /
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
/Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. /
//
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
/Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. /
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>*480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
**
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
We agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden. If Volker’s position reflects the position of the Providers, I propose that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner. Thanks, 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:28 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April While that may be accurate, it does not change the fact that you expect some poor sap to sit on a chair on a week-end or holiday, or at least refrain from any activity that may result in a longer unavailability on the odd one-in-a-million chance that someone from a LEA in their jurisdiction may immediately need some information only they can provide. And it is not like a PPS is providing a basic utility where you would have to have someone on call already. While what you are asking is certainly a "nice-to-have", it is unreasonable and commercially unfeasible to expect that kind of readiness from what is essentially a low margin, low effort service. Unless your goal is pushing PPS providers out of business or underground... Again: Without this accreditation, you have nothing. No obligation to respond, ever! Now you get a business day turnaround. Wouldn't you agree that this is the better option of the two? ICANN works on consensus. Without consensus, you have nothing. By asking for the unreasonable, you risk that consensus that exists on most other issues. Would you rather have nothing? Volker Greimann Am 03.05.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours. Peter Roman Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave.<x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Hi Peter, I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing. Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours. And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers. If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose? Volker Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate. The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement. Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions. The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not. 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net<http://www.onlineaccountability.net> <image001.gif> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
You keep saying that the value dramatically outweighs the burden. Well, I would like to see numbers to back that up. How many requests that you would consider to be high priority under this new policy have been made by law enforcement to privacy proxy providers over the past year? And how many of those were not answered within the time needed to do whatever these requests were intended to do? Spoiler: For our group company privacy services, both numbers are zero. If you want to continue to argue a value, please back that up with facts and numbers. I am aware of the case you described in San Juan, but that is only one such case and one - I might add - where you were able to get the data you needed without this policy requirement. Please, show us the numbers and statistics that show that outweighs the burden on all providers. Best, Volker Am 08.05.2018 um 22:41 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
We agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden.
If Volker’s position reflects the position of the Providers, I propose that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner.
Thanks,
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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:28 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
While that may be accurate, it does not change the fact that you expect some poor sap to sit on a chair on a week-end or holiday, or at least refrain from any activity that may result in a longer unavailability on the odd one-in-a-million chance that someone from a LEA in their jurisdiction may immediately need some information only they can provide. And it is not like a PPS is providing a basic utility where you would have to have someone on call already.
While what you are asking is certainly a "nice-to-have", it is unreasonable and commercially unfeasible to expect that kind of readiness from what is essentially a low margin, low effort service. Unless your goal is pushing PPS providers out of business or underground...
Again: Without this accreditation, you have nothing. No obligation to respond, ever! Now you get a business day turnaround. Wouldn't you agree that this is the better option of the two?
ICANN works on consensus. Without consensus, you have nothing. By asking for the unreasonable, you risk that consensus that exists on most other issues. Would you rather have nothing?
Volker Greimann
Am 03.05.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours.
Peter Roman
Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW
Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323
peter.roman@usdoj.gov <mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov>
On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Hi Peter,
I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing.
Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours.
And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers.
If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose?
Volker
Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate.
The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement.
Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions.
The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not.
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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
**
*<image001.gif>*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
**
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
/Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. /
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
/Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? /
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
/Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. /
//
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
/Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. /
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | GoDaddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>* 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
**
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________
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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Agree with Volker. Data to back up the demand is needed. And not just for US law enforcement. Data from all the major agencies worldwide. Additionally, the answer to Volker’s first 2 questions is zero for us as well. Sara Sent from my iPhone. Apologies for typos and/or brevity. On May 9, 2018, at 2:02 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: You keep saying that the value dramatically outweighs the burden. Well, I would like to see numbers to back that up. How many requests that you would consider to be high priority under this new policy have been made by law enforcement to privacy proxy providers over the past year? And how many of those were not answered within the time needed to do whatever these requests were intended to do? Spoiler: For our group company privacy services, both numbers are zero. If you want to continue to argue a value, please back that up with facts and numbers. I am aware of the case you described in San Juan, but that is only one such case and one - I might add - where you were able to get the data you needed without this policy requirement. Please, show us the numbers and statistics that show that outweighs the burden on all providers. Best, Volker Am 08.05.2018 um 22:41 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): We agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden. If Volker’s position reflects the position of the Providers, I propose that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner. Thanks, 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:28 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April While that may be accurate, it does not change the fact that you expect some poor sap to sit on a chair on a week-end or holiday, or at least refrain from any activity that may result in a longer unavailability on the odd one-in-a-million chance that someone from a LEA in their jurisdiction may immediately need some information only they can provide. And it is not like a PPS is providing a basic utility where you would have to have someone on call already. While what you are asking is certainly a "nice-to-have", it is unreasonable and commercially unfeasible to expect that kind of readiness from what is essentially a low margin, low effort service. Unless your goal is pushing PPS providers out of business or underground... Again: Without this accreditation, you have nothing. No obligation to respond, ever! Now you get a business day turnaround. Wouldn't you agree that this is the better option of the two? ICANN works on consensus. Without consensus, you have nothing. By asking for the unreasonable, you risk that consensus that exists on most other issues. Would you rather have nothing? Volker Greimann Am 03.05.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours. Peter Roman Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave.<x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Hi Peter, I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing. Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours. And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers. If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose? Volker Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate. The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement. Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions. The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not. 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net<http://www.onlineaccountability.net> <image001.gif> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
Pending the results of Amy’s last email: As I said, we agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden. Since Volker and Sara apparently speak for all providers, and you are all unwilling to compromise on this important and life-saving issue, I propose that that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner. 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 Sara Bockey Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 8:58 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Agree with Volker. Data to back up the demand is needed. And not just for US law enforcement. Data from all the major agencies worldwide. Additionally, the answer to Volker’s first 2 questions is zero for us as well. Sara Sent from my iPhone. Apologies for typos and/or brevity. On May 9, 2018, at 2:02 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: You keep saying that the value dramatically outweighs the burden. Well, I would like to see numbers to back that up. How many requests that you would consider to be high priority under this new policy have been made by law enforcement to privacy proxy providers over the past year? And how many of those were not answered within the time needed to do whatever these requests were intended to do? Spoiler: For our group company privacy services, both numbers are zero. If you want to continue to argue a value, please back that up with facts and numbers. I am aware of the case you described in San Juan, but that is only one such case and one - I might add - where you were able to get the data you needed without this policy requirement. Please, show us the numbers and statistics that show that outweighs the burden on all providers. Best, Volker Am 08.05.2018 um 22:41 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): We agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden. If Volker’s position reflects the position of the Providers, I propose that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner. Thanks, 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:28 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April While that may be accurate, it does not change the fact that you expect some poor sap to sit on a chair on a week-end or holiday, or at least refrain from any activity that may result in a longer unavailability on the odd one-in-a-million chance that someone from a LEA in their jurisdiction may immediately need some information only they can provide. And it is not like a PPS is providing a basic utility where you would have to have someone on call already. While what you are asking is certainly a "nice-to-have", it is unreasonable and commercially unfeasible to expect that kind of readiness from what is essentially a low margin, low effort service. Unless your goal is pushing PPS providers out of business or underground... Again: Without this accreditation, you have nothing. No obligation to respond, ever! Now you get a business day turnaround. Wouldn't you agree that this is the better option of the two? ICANN works on consensus. Without consensus, you have nothing. By asking for the unreasonable, you risk that consensus that exists on most other issues. Would you rather have nothing? Volker Greimann Am 03.05.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours. Peter Roman Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave.<x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323 peter.roman@usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov> On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Hi Peter, I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing. Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours. And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers. If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose? Volker Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate. The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement. Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions. The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not. 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up. So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse. But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point. Volker Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM): All, A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification: Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.” This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period. The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information. I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day. 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 Metalitz, Steven Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification. On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net<http://www.onlineaccountability.net> <image001.gif> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft. I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week. I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it). Best, Amy From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc. Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. Regarding Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic) Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort. Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined? Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript. IRT Action Items We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment. Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this. Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections: Original Numbering Reorganized Version Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit) Same section Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases) Moved to Section 3.2.2 Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end) Same section Section 4.2.2.5<http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? ) Same section Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?) Same section I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April. For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
So the alternatives are: a) Physically and logistically impossible b) Implementable c) Unfeasible and business model breaking If we frame it like that, I think the choice is clear. Volker Am 17.05.2018 um 20:50 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
Pending the results of Amy’s last email:
As I said, we agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden.
Since Volker and Sara apparently speak for all providers, and you are all unwilling to compromise on this important and life-saving issue, I propose that that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner.
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 *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Wednesday, May 9, 2018 8:58 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Agree with Volker. Data to back up the demand is needed. And not just for US law enforcement. Data from all the major agencies worldwide.
Additionally, the answer to Volker’s first 2 questions is zero for us as well.
Sara
Sent from my iPhone. Apologies for typos and/or brevity.
On May 9, 2018, at 2:02 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
You keep saying that the value dramatically outweighs the burden. Well, I would like to see numbers to back that up. How many requests that you would consider to be high priority under this new policy have been made by law enforcement to privacy proxy providers over the past year? And how many of those were not answered within the time needed to do whatever these requests were intended to do?
Spoiler: For our group company privacy services, both numbers are zero.
If you want to continue to argue a value, please back that up with facts and numbers.
I am aware of the case you described in San Juan, but that is only one such case and one - I might add - where you were able to get the data you needed without this policy requirement.
Please, show us the numbers and statistics that show that outweighs the burden on all providers.
Best,
Volker
Am 08.05.2018 um 22:41 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
We agree to disagree. The PSWG maintains that your description of the burden on the Provider is inaccurate given modern communication methods. And, even if it wasn’t, the value of the service dramatically outweighs the burden.
If Volker’s position reflects the position of the Providers, I propose that we put it to the community, including: the PSWG position, immediate response; the Provider position, one business day that could be as long as a week to respond to an emergency request at all; and the proposed compromise language, a 24 hour window to respond in some manner.
Thanks,
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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:28 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
While that may be accurate, it does not change the fact that you expect some poor sap to sit on a chair on a week-end or holiday, or at least refrain from any activity that may result in a longer unavailability on the odd one-in-a-million chance that someone from a LEA in their jurisdiction may immediately need some information only they can provide. And it is not like a PPS is providing a basic utility where you would have to have someone on call already.
While what you are asking is certainly a "nice-to-have", it is unreasonable and commercially unfeasible to expect that kind of readiness from what is essentially a low margin, low effort service. Unless your goal is pushing PPS providers out of business or underground...
Again: Without this accreditation, you have nothing. No obligation to respond, ever! Now you get a business day turnaround. Wouldn't you agree that this is the better option of the two?
ICANN works on consensus. Without consensus, you have nothing. By asking for the unreasonable, you risk that consensus that exists on most other issues. Would you rather have nothing?
Volker Greimann
Am 03.05.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
Actually, the worst case scenario isn’t 72 hours, because every time there is a national holiday it becomes 96 hours. And for certain holidays, such as Shanghai National Day (which is a week long despite being called a day), Mardi Gras, etc. it can be as long as 168 hours.
Peter Roman
Senior Counsel Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1301 New York Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://7>, NW
Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-1323
peter.roman@usdoj.gov <mailto:peter.roman@usdoj.gov>
On May 2, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Hi Peter,
I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to. We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is better than nothing.
Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven, you will have a response in less than 24 hours.
And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case. Even one business day may be difficult for some providers.
If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo, what would you choose?
Volker
Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate.
The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs. 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in the hopes of reaching an agreement.
Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions.
The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time, with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable. We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not.
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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning everything beyond that is either unreasonable or impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want because it is an artificial number we want, it seems clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed response time we are talking about. And anything you get here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A quick additional response to the comments in the LEA specification:
Note 7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT contend that the 24-hour period recommended by the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable time for a request to be actioned in an emergency situation.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG position. The PSWG has maintained from the beginning of the conversation on emergency requests that they needed to be “actioned” immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the 24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one business day response time. One business day, as the providers have explained it, means that an emergency request delivered to the provider on Friday afternoon does not need to be responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one business day means 72 hours or more. In an emergency, this is completely useless response time. By that time, people are dead. An imminent threat to life means that somebody is going to die any moment without this information.
I hope that you never have to respond to one of these requests but I also hope that if you do, you will not ignore it until you get to it the next business day.
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 *Metalitz, Steven *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please see in-line feedback below regarding some of Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
*On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
**
*<image001.gif>*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: +1.202.355.7902 | 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 [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amy Bivins *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve updated the draft to address your last point, Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about separating out standard and high priority requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong opposition to the inclusion of the other edits proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these will be accepted in the next draft.
**
*I encourage all IRT members to review the draft again when you are able and provide any further feedback no later than the end of next week.*
I don’t have any further information or materials for you today for next week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
*From:* Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sara Bockey *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20 PM *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2 “without limitations” is necessary to ensure legitimate instances not yet listed or thought of are covered. Examples of additional causes beyond the control of the Provider: war, terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage, internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t changes, labor disputes, etc.
/Steve’s comment: (I think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes me as a reasonable list of reasons why a provider would not be able to respond in a timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request (whether High Priority or Standard Priority), but not of reasons to deny altogether a request that otherwise meets the requirements of the specification. Should we append this list to what is now 4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would be much more comfortable including “without limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2. /
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> – I see no issue with redundancy and there is no harm in including this. If anything, it protects against potential abuse (in parts of the world that are less democratic)
/Steve’s comment: This refers to the “well founded” phrasing in 4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding what would make a request that meets all the requirements of the specification not “well founded,” and believe I pointed out on the April 17 call why this situation differs from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears (in short, that the RAA does not define what needs to go into an actionable LE request, and this specification does). Can Sara or others provide an example of when this ground for refusal of an LEA request might come into play? /
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for providers in parts of the world that are less democratic. We must remember this will be applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke with me the most comfort.
/Steve’s comment (this refers to the “due process” language now appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is redundant and for that reason do not object to it. “Foregoing due process within its applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of applicable law. Regarding the legitimate concerns about “less democratic” jurisdictions: remember that this entire specification only applies to disclosure requests received from LE authorities within the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you choose to establish the provider within a “less democratic” jurisdiction, that provider still has to follow the laws of that jurisdiction, including the laws that define what process is due in a particular situation. /
//
Finally, I note that Staff is using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the document instead of one business day as agreed by the registrars. Since one business day is what the registrars have agreed to, should it not be the default until otherwise determined?
/Steve’s comments: I have suggested putting the two options in square brackets, don’t care which one is listed first. /
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | GoDaddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>*480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>" <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call. For those who could not attend, I regret that we were unable to record this meeting (an issue with a new internal recording policy), but this was a one-time issue and all future meetings will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate the LEA specification document with the items we discussed, and have also attached the chat transcript.
*IRT Action Items*
We are nearing the completion of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other than the item of clear disagreement among members of the IRT—the time period for high priority requests—we are largely in the refining stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed edits for the group to review and comment on—including some edits that were originally suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and supported by many registrar members of the IRT. If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits that would warrant further discussion, we will make these edits as requested in the draft we publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer if we reorganized it slightly, to make more clear where processes apply to high priority requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the end of the title—which includes the proposed edits without reorganizing, and the “reorganized” one. Please review both and respond to the list with your thoughts about the proposed reorganizing of this.
*Please provide any additional input you have on this draft no later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note, specifically, questions in the following sections:*
*Original Numbering*
*Reorganized Version*
Section 2.1.10 (addition of “except in high priority” language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1 (addition of the words “Standard Priority” to make clear this 2 business day receipt process doesn’t apply in high priority cases)
Moved to Section 3.2.2
Section 4.2.2 (inclusion of “without limitations” language, plus input about and question from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons that registrars feel would be reasonable for refusing disclosure?); Also see feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison, in meeting chat transcript (most pasted into specification document but cuts off at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5 <http://4.2.2.5> (is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6 (is this redundant?)
Same section
**
I’m also attaching the most recent draft de-accreditation procedure document. As mentioned on the list last week, upon further consideration on the ICANN org side we think we should add back in the proposed transition procedure for customers impacted by the de-accreditation or termination of a third-party provider (section 4). Please review and provide any further comments on this no later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping to have the requested fees information ready for you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I can.
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (8)
-
Amy Bivins -
Eric Rokobauer -
Metalitz, Steven -
Roman, Peter (CRM) -
Sara Bockey -
theo geurts -
Vlad Dinculescu -
Volker Greimann