Hi Amy, Can you remove my comment on section 2.3 and 3 regarding the SPECIFICATION 5: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE FRAMEWORK SPECIFICATION? I made a few comments there, but on closer inspection do NOT apply, I guess I lost focus at the end of reading the entire thing. Thanks, Theo Geurts Amy Bivins schreef op 2017-07-24 01:34 PM:

Thanks, Theo! Will add these comments to the issues list.

-----Original Message----- From: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:23 AM To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Agreement comments

Hi all,

Attached my comments on the agreement.

Overall the agreement is in pretty good shape. A few sections are somewhat problematic.

Section 2.3 Domain Name Resolves to Website Where Trademark Is Allegedly Infringed coupled with Section 3. Provider Action on Request. Perhaps it is me, but I have this fear that these two sections will create a lot of manual labor on the Registrar/provider side? Or has the potential to create a ton of work. Again maybe it is me, some input from Registrars or WG members is very welcome. Perhaps this was the intention of the WG; I am not sure.

SPECIFICATION 6: DATA RETENTION SPECIFICATION Maybe I just have grown a healthy distaste when it comes to waiver processes, but do we require a data retention spec for a privacy service?

Thanks,

Theo

Ps, that agreement is a very long read......

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