February 2020 - Gnso-epdp-team

Simple clarification proposal for the initial report.
by Mueller, Milton L Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

All: I've been reviewing the draft report. On p 10 we are supposed to be setting out the basic principles underlying the SSAD model. In fact, we never quite do that. We need to state right there that we have adopted a hybrid model, which involves a centralized point for accreditation and for the receipt of queries, but that disclosure decisions that are made by the contracted party who is holding the data. We need to state that simply and clearly. I propose the following language for the first bullet: * Requests for redacted data are made to a centralized gateway administered by ICANN, which also accredits entities to make queries. Disclosure decisions are made by the contracted parties maintaining the data. None of the other principles make any sense until this is stated. E.g., the first bullet point talks about automation but automation of what? Queries, authorization, disclosure? The second bullet point talks about "further streamlining and standardizing of disclosure requests" but this makes no sense unless we have made it clear that the model involves a centralized point for disclosure requests and decentralized disclosure decisions. Further down on p 11, in describing the benefits, we do say that there is a single point for making requests, but the P. 10 summary is what most people will read first as the basic elements of the model, so we need to make it clear there. I think this addition is pretty noncontroversial and hope we can go ahead with it. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block]

4 4

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

*Updated duration** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 06 February 2020
by Terri Agnew Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

**Updated duration below. 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 3 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/toxw56e 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