January 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
by King, Brian Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Hello EPDP Team, Please find below our first proposal for automated disclosure. Trademark Infringement in Domain Name Requestor Safeguards 1. Accreditation Authority determines that the trademark is valid. 2. Accreditation Authority determines that Requestor is the legal owner, agent, or service provider of the trademark. Request Safeguards 1. Requestor alleges that the domain name infringes Requestor's trademark. 2. Requestor states its own legal basis and purpose for processing the data. Requestor makes a syntactically correct and complete request, including any/all required Authorization Assertions. Requestor makes all representations required by policy: use will be limited to stated purpose, data retention, etc. 3. Domain string contains exact match of trademark string (potentially including prefix or suffix, e.g. "nike-shoes.TLD" or "cheap-nike.TLD"). Additional Noteworthy Safeguards 1. Registrant committed not to infringe the rights of third parties in its registration agreement, as required by the RA and RAA. 2. Registrant was informed at the time that its data was collected that it could be processed for third-party purposes, including intellectual property protection. In these cases, disclosure can be automated. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs T +1 443 761 3726 markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> MarkMonitor Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world

7 14

SSAD Use Cases which are automatable
by Mark Svancarek (CELA) Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Feedback requested.

2 2

FW: IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
by Mueller, Milton L Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

Brian: >Since the free speech example would not be trademark infringement, the >requestor could not cite that basis to request data for a domain like this. LOL. That's the problem with automation, Brian. They could cite any basis they pleased and they would get the data. There would be no opportunity to challenge it. No one would even see it. > Remember that in this use case we're requiring that the requestor allege > infringement, and fraud or misrepresentation can result in deaccreditation. >The additional noteworthy safeguards we mention below are tied to this >representation: that the requestor has a good-faith belief that the domain name is infringing. >Do you think additional safeguards are required? If so, why? Which ones would you suggest? Trademark owners often sincerely believe that any use of their mark in any circumstance is an infringement. I invite you to read 1,000 UDRP cases or so if you doubt this. This is no safeguard at all. And oh by the way, if the process is automated how is anyone supposed to know what was alleged and how well the allegations matched the actual case? By doing a laborious after the fact log check after millions of disclosures have been made? Do we both understand the meaning of the term "automated" here? It means, you enter a query and you get results, no human intervention. >As a final point on your note below, it seems like you think the legal standard for disclosure >is proof of infringement. No of course I do not think that. You do not need to prove infringement to get disclosure. But we are not having an argument about the criteria for disclosure, we are having an argument about when we can _automate_ disclosure. You seem to be assuming that if these requests are not automated there will be no disclosure. Clearly that is not the case. You will make a request, it will be reviewed by a human, and if it is prima facie reasonable, you will get disclosure. I will even say that in most cases disclosure will be routine, because the pattern of a domain suspect of trademark infringing is quite common. But routinization is not automation. You can have the former but not the latter. Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]

2 3

Input requested on use cases that support automated disclosure decisions by Tuesday 4 February
by Marika Konings Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, As discussed, please provide your input on the attached ‘Use Cases That Support Automated Disclosure Decisions’ that were circulated by Mark SV by Tuesday 4 February COB, especially focusing on which use cases your group thinks can be included in the Initial Report in Preliminary Recommendation #7 Authorization for automated disclosure requests. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

3 2

FW: SSAD Use Cases which are automatable
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

Mark, Basically, you have confused all "cases in which the data controller should disclose" with "cases where disclosure should be automatic merely by making a request" Let me remind you that "automatic" means _no awareness_ and _no possibility of intervention_ by the contracted party holding the data. They guaranteed tunnels into the CP's data. I would agree that in most of the cases you cite the CP probably should make a disclosure decision, and almost certainly would if the conditions were right. But they still need to have oversight over whether those conditions are met, and that prevents full automation. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 4:17 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)ICANN.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@ICANN.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] SSAD Use Cases which are automatable Feedback requested.

2 1

FW: IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

Brian there are many holes in this call for automation. The most obvious being that the presence of an exact string match of a trademark is not by itself an infringement of a trademark. There are many cases of free expression use of a string, such as "don't-buy-nike.TLD" There are accidental string matches or generic uses. There are uses in different industries that are not confusingly similar. Your mention of the so-called "noteworthy safeguards" is laughably irrelevant, as it basically presumes that the requestor's interest in disclosure is proof of infringement. While MarkMonitor's business interest in automatic searching, requesting and intimidation of domain name registrants via demand letters is clear, I do not think that our policies need to be built around those business interests. If you believe a domain is infringing, file a UDRP. Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 3:52 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation Hello EPDP Team, Please find below our first proposal for automated disclosure. Trademark Infringement in Domain Name Requestor Safeguards 1. Accreditation Authority determines that the trademark is valid. 2. Accreditation Authority determines that Requestor is the legal owner, agent, or service provider of the trademark. Request Safeguards 1. Requestor alleges that the domain name infringes Requestor's trademark. 2. Requestor states its own legal basis and purpose for processing the data. Requestor makes a syntactically correct and complete request, including any/all required Authorization Assertions. Requestor makes all representations required by policy: use will be limited to stated purpose, data retention, etc. 3. Domain string contains exact match of trademark string (potentially including prefix or suffix, e.g. "nike-shoes.TLD" or "cheap-nike.TLD"). Additional Noteworthy Safeguards 1. Registrant committed not to infringe the rights of third parties in its registration agreement, as required by the RA and RAA. 2. Registrant was informed at the time that its data was collected that it could be processed for third-party purposes, including intellectual property protection. In these cases, disclosure can be automated. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs T +1 443 761 3726 markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> MarkMonitor Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world

2 1

For your review by Tuesday 4 February - EPDP Team Initial Report
by Marika Konings Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, Please find attached for your final review the latest draft of the EPDP Team Initial Report. You will find attached both the redline version and a clean, line numbered version. * In the redline, you will find the changes agreed during today’s discussions, proposed language prepared by a small team addressing the joint controller issue and some further updates to other parts of the Initial Report. * Please note that the staff support team further reviewed the accreditation section to address the confusion around the authorization credential and in consultation with Alex Deacon, the original author, we are proposing to change the reference from “authorization credential” to “signed assertions” to avoid any confusion with the authorization function for disclosure requests. This should not change any of the substance, Please use the attached issues sheet to list any items your group cannot live with for publication in the Initial Report at the latest by Tuesday 4 February COB. Like during the F2F meeting, you are required to provide your rationale as well as proposed language to address your concern, factoring in discussions to date. In order to ensure that the focus of discussions for next week Thursday’s meeting is on ‘cannot live with’ items, please highlight those in red. The Staff Support Team will circulate a compiled list to the EPDP Team on Wednesday so that you can review with your group and flag in advance or at the start of the call which items need further consideration. Any non-substantial edits or suggestions can be sent off-list to the staff support team. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 06 February 2020
by Terri Agnew Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 is scheduled on Thursday 06 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 120 minutes. (calls will be scheduled for 120 minutes but aim to keep to 90 minutes) For other times: https://tinyurl.com/syszu94 Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/XgVxBw The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Meeting Audio Cast (for observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> If needed, an option to join via telephone has been added for this meeting. **Join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann Enter passcode on telephone: 7349 Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | 27-29 January 2020 F2F
by Terri Agnew Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held 27-29 January 2020 F2F meetings can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/WgVxBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . (please give it some time for Wednesday’s recordings to be posted) These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call, observers can join via audio cast, listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

**with ical attached / Meeting Invitation Webinar | EPDP - Phase 2 Proposed Recommendations on a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure | Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear all, Please find the details below for the EPDP - Phase 2 Proposed Recommendations on a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure Webinar. This webinar will provide an overview of the EPDP’s Phase 2 proposed recommendations for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD). This effort builds upon the EPDP’s Phase 1 work on enhancing Registration Data Services where, under certain circumstances, personal contact information is now redacted. The Phase 2 effort for developing the SSAD will allow for disclosure of this redacted contact information based on third-party legitimate interests, administration proceedings, and law enforcement needs, subject to applicable law and the rights of the data subject. The webinar will highlight each of the EPDP Team’s recommendations and will provide an opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide feedback on the Initial Report, which is currently out for public comment. The report can be found on the public comment proceedings section on https://www.icann.org/public-comments [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>, and the webinar materials will be posted on the EPDP’s wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6g6JBw> following the webinar. Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes For other times: https://tinyurl.com/wsm7h3y [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_wsm7h3y&d=…> Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/s/331729252 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_s_331729…> Meeting ID: 331 729 252 Password: 586730 One tap mobile +16699006833,,331729252# US (San Jose) +19294362866,,331729252# US (New York) Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/abQBVd1jHM [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_abQBVd…> Slides to assist you with Zoom: Welcome to Zoom: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/1sal3l5qf4csdukt0pk2c75ey3bte22z.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> Zoom FAQ: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/d5rap0g6xphevhkdd3mhu2hy753l2m3s.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> If Zoom disappears, see instructions:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/present…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> A calendar invitation has equally been attachment for you to download to your calendar. Thank you in advance for reserving this time in your schedule. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0