October 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Correct MP3 URL - MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-06oct15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Alex Deacon - IPC Carlton Samuels - At–Large Chris Pelling - RrSG Christian Dawson - ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Don Blumenthal-RySG Frank Michlick –- Individual Graeme Bunton -– RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Iranga Kahangama James Bladel -– RrSG Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid -– RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Paul McGrady –- IPC Phil Corwin – BC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Sara Bockey - RrSG Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Steve Metalitz – IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Theo Gurts - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Val Sherman -– IPC Vicky Sheckler Volker Greimann - RrSG Apologies: Sarah Wyld – RrSG Holly Raiche –- ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC ICANN staff: Glen de St Gery Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Gisella Gruber Chantelle Doerksen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Chantelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 6 October 2015 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th October 2015 Graeme Bunton: Getting some typing sounds. Mary Wong: Please mute your mics if not speaking, thank you! Chris Pelling: afternoon all Theo Geurts: hello all Carlton Samuels: Morning everybody Volker A. Greimann: afternoon Bladel: Good morning! Kathy: Is anyone else hearing a lot of static? Graeme Bunton: Not at the moment, Kathy Kathy: Just me... Chris Pelling: on the voice bridge I get static every now and then Volker A. Greimann: Re: the disclosure framework, it appears one essential element has been forgotten in the drafting: "No disclosure if Requestor has not met the requirements of disclosure, in the opinion of the provider" Graeme Bunton: Nothing from me, Steve. Mary Wong: Yes, this is the document staff received over the weekend and forwarded to the WG on Sunday. Volker A. Greimann: would today be the right time to raise that? Mary Wong: @Volker, we may get to that document later - but LMK if that is a provision that got edited out somewhere? Graeme Bunton: We should hopefully get there as part of item 4 on today's agenda i think. Chris Pelling: ill be leaving at 1700 at Dublin Chris Pelling: just an fyi Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: no, it was not discussed, it was simply forgotten Todd Williams: @Volker: doesn't III(C)(iii) cover what you're describing? Happy to discuss when we get to it. Volker A. Greimann: indeed. Volker A. Greimann: lets do it then Mary Wong: The document is unsync'ed so everyone can scroll as wished. Christian Dawson: Sorry for late arrival. Vicky Sheckler: kathy - as Paul mentioned, the subteam has not had a chance to review together an dthese are issues, not firm firm recommendations Mary Wong: Note that while ICANN may be able to collect the anecdotal data noted here, we won't be able to verify the data or the senders. Stephanie Perrin: You are fading out Steve Volker A. Greimann: Steve, you alternate between normal voice and baraly audible voice Val S.: I hear him fine Chantelle Doerksen: Iranga Kahangama, Lindsey Hamilton-Reid, and Christian Dawson have joined us. Mary Wong: Note #2: The WG can agree to recommend a periodic review, but the details of when, how etc will likely be worked out by the Implementation Reiew Team. Chantelle Doerksen: Osvaldo Novoa has joined. Chantelle Doerksen: Stephanie Perrin has joined. Stephanie Perrin: I dont see that determining data retention periods by jurisdiction is that ambitious. Stephanie Perrin: (for instance) Stephanie Perrin: The isssue of penalties is extremely important, otherwise there are no repercussions for requestors. Bladel: Concerned that we may be creating a loophole, rogue privacy services will restructure as legal advisors in friendly jurisdictions. Chris Pelling: I do not agree with the speaker here Stephanie Perrin: +1 James B Chris Pelling: you are suggesting that they simply can get around this. Chris Pelling: Yet you wish to remove the human rights of the PP service user Chris Pelling: come on...... Stephanie Perrin: Nobody is taking away the right to counsel, we are simply expecting Attorneys to meet the same standards as everyone else. Chris Pelling: the way forward is they are treated the same Chris Pelling: they have to be accredited Chris Pelling: if we have to be accredited Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: I can't speak for the entire EWG but some of us learned a few things that were just not in our experience, knowledge or on our radar. Chris Pelling: +1 Volker Mary Wong: On the type of vulnerabilities and difficult cases (e.g. asylum) - note that the comments on this point were largely from individuals and groups who were concerned about losing the ability to use P/P services. Mary Wong: So to the extent that the WG's final recommendations do not accomplish that (e.g. robust safeguards against overbroad disclosure) perhaps that is a starting point to resolve the topic? Carlton Samuels: @Volker: +1 I support one set of rules for accessing the service. And the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way Stephanie Perrin: This is the poor man's legal service. Carlton Samuels: ..and with malice towards non! Mary Wong: Hopefully my comments help clarify where the concerns (which in the document are reflected as "according to staff") came from. The review we did include all the additional comments that the Save Domain Privacy petition organizers sent in as well. Stephanie Perrin: We cannot create a species of privacy proxy service provider that does not have the same requirements to reveal as the non-lawyer variety. Carlton Samuels: If we think the rules can be mute in malice, we must give it voice to protect all those who need the service. Volker A. Greimann: maybe the solution is not to let lawyers provide this service, i.e. make certain that the rules cover layers when talking about unaccredited service providers Kathy: some in the world think we should not move forward - and passionately so Volker A. Greimann: that would solve the issue of two sets of rules. just ban them from providing thi non-legal service unless they agree to follow the rules Volker A. Greimann: they can still recommend service providers to their customers Philip Corwin: Volker, I think ICANN lacks any power to prevent attorneys from providing such services to their clients. It's not like they need to be accredited Volker A. Greimann: right, but it can force registrars to suspend such registrations under their terms Volker A. Greimann: lawyers=unaccredited service provider= trigger for registrar enforcement of consequences Volker A. Greimann: "you used a lawyer to hide your identity from the whois? He is not accredited? Sorry, under ICANN policies, which you accepted, we must now suspend the domain... Mary Wong: @Steve, from the ICANN perspective, we do not believe either the WG or ICANN can deem any law applicable. Mary Wong: This is not to say we don't agree that this is an important concern, just that we do not believe we have the legal authority to do so. Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: something similar to the choice of law requirements of the UDRP may work Volker A. Greimann: i.e. those who avail themselves of a defined process must agree to certain jurisdictions¥ Mary Wong: @Volker, possibly - but even there it's not a single jurisdiction that is mandated. Bladel: Just thankst o Subteam 4. Mary Wong: And this may be a bit more complicated because there isn't just one single contract involved. Don Blumenthal: I think that jurisdiction is beyond our scope . However, I'll mention that LE is not the only possible source of legal paperwork. Mary Wong: @Steve, noted. Mary Wong: This is the version circulated but including Stephanie's comments from yesterday. Kathy: Steve - I think people might need to review Kathy: Tx to Todd for our work together on this version Philip Corwin: I must drop off to join SO/AC leader call. See you all in Dublin -- safe travel! Rudi Vansnick: have to go too ... SO/AC call Volker A. Greimann: correct Steve, thanks Volker A. Greimann: that is what i think as well, it just should be clearer Kathy: A bit more clarity might be good... Carlton Samuels: Thanks everbody Frank Michlick: See you in Dublin. Thank you. Bladel: Thanks, folks. Safe travels. Sara Bockey: thanks all Carlton Samuels: Safe travels to Dublin Graeme Bunton: Thanks all Chantelle Doerksen: Thanks all! Safe travels to Dublin!

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC
by Chantelle Doerksen Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

> Dear All, > > Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation > Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: > > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-06oct15-en.mp3 > <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-29sep15-en.mp3> > > On page: > http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> > > The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master > Calendar page: > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ > > Attendees: > Alex Deacon - IPC > Carlton Samuels - AtLarge > Chris Pelling - RrSG > Christian Dawson - ISPCP > Darcy Southwell RrSG > Don Blumenthal-RySG > Frank Michlick - Individual > Graeme Bunton - RrSG > Griffin Barnett - IPC > Iranga Kahangama > James Bladel - RrSG > Kathy Kleiman - NCSG > Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG > Osvaldo Novoa ISPCP > Paul McGrady - IPC > Phil Corwin BC > Rudi Vansnick NPOC > Sara Bockey - RrSG > Stephanie Perrin NCSG > Steve Metalitz IPC > Susan Kawaguchi - BC > Theo Gurts - RrSG > Todd Williams - IPC > Val Sherman - IPC > Vicky Sheckler > Volker Greimann - RrSG > > > Apologies: > Sarah Wyld RrSG > Holly Raiche - ALAC > Kiran Malancharuvil IPC > > > ICANN staff: > Glen de St Gery > Mary Wong > Marika Konings > Amy Bivins > Gisella Gruber > Chantelle Doerksen > > > ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** > > Mailing list archives: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ > > Wiki page: > https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Chantelle > > ------------------------------- > > Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 6 October 2015 > Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th October > 2015 > Graeme Bunton: Getting some typing sounds. > Mary Wong: Please mute your mics if not speaking, thank you! > Chris Pelling: afternoon all > Theo Geurts: hello all > Carlton Samuels: Morning everybody > Volker A. Greimann: afternoon > Bladel: Good morning! > Kathy: Is anyone else hearing a lot of static? > Graeme Bunton: Not at the moment, Kathy > Kathy: Just me... > Chris Pelling: on the voice bridge I get static every now and then > Volker A. Greimann: Re: the disclosure framework, it appears one essential > element has been forgotten in the drafting: "No disclosure if Requestor has > not met the requirements of disclosure, in the opinion of the provider" > Graeme Bunton: Nothing from me, Steve. > Mary Wong: Yes, this is the document staff received over the weekend and > forwarded to the WG on Sunday. > Volker A. Greimann: would today be the right time to raise that? > Mary Wong: @Volker, we may get to that document later - but LMK if that is a > provision that got edited out somewhere? > Graeme Bunton: We should hopefully get there as part of item 4 on today's > agenda i think. > Chris Pelling: ill be leaving at 1700 at Dublin > Chris Pelling: just an fyi > Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: no, it was not discussed, it was simply forgotten > Todd Williams: @Volker: doesn't III(C)(iii) cover what you're describing? > Happy to discuss when we get to it. > Volker A. Greimann: indeed. > Volker A. Greimann: lets do it then > Mary Wong: The document is unsync'ed so everyone can scroll as wished. > Christian Dawson: Sorry for late arrival. > Vicky Sheckler: kathy - as Paul mentioned, the subteam has not had a chance to > review together an dthese are issues, not firm firm recommendations > Mary Wong: Note that while ICANN may be able to collect the anecdotal data > noted here, we won't be able to verify the data or the senders. > Stephanie Perrin: You are fading out Steve > Volker A. Greimann: Steve, you alternate between normal voice and baraly > audible voice > Val S.: I hear him fine > Chantelle Doerksen: Iranga Kahangama, Lindsey Hamilton-Reid, and Christian > Dawson have joined us. > Mary Wong: Note #2: The WG can agree to recommend a periodic review, but the > details of when, how etc will likely be worked out by the Implementation Reiew > Team. > Chantelle Doerksen: Osvaldo Novoa has joined. > Chantelle Doerksen: Stephanie Perrin has joined. > Stephanie Perrin: I dont see that determining data retention periods by > jurisdiction is that ambitious. > Stephanie Perrin: (for instance) > Stephanie Perrin: The isssue of penalties is extremely important, otherwise > there are no repercussions for requestors. > Bladel: Concerned that we may be creating a loophole, rogue privacy services > will restructure as legal advisors in friendly jurisdictions. > Chris Pelling: I do not agree with the speaker here > Stephanie Perrin: +1 James B > Chris Pelling: you are suggesting that they simply can get around this. > Chris Pelling: Yet you wish to remove the human rights of the PP service user > Chris Pelling: come on...... > Stephanie Perrin: Nobody is taking away the right to counsel, we are simply > expecting Attorneys to meet the same standards as everyone else. > Chris Pelling: the way forward is they are treated the same > Chris Pelling: they have to be accredited > Chris Pelling: if we have to be accredited > Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: I can't speak for the entire EWG but some of us > learned a few things that were just not in our experience, knowledge or on our > radar. > Chris Pelling: +1 Volker > Mary Wong: On the type of vulnerabilities and difficult cases (e.g. asylum) - > note that the comments on this point were largely from individuals and groups > who were concerned about losing the ability to use P/P services. > Mary Wong: So to the extent that the WG's final recommendations do not > accomplish that (e.g. robust safeguards against overbroad disclosure) perhaps > that is a starting point to resolve the topic? > Carlton Samuels: @Volker: +1 I support one set of rules for accessing the > service. And the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way > Stephanie Perrin: This is the poor man's legal service. > Carlton Samuels: ..and with malice towards non! > Mary Wong: Hopefully my comments help clarify where the concerns (which in the > document are reflected as "according to staff") came from. The review we did > include all the additional comments that the Save Domain Privacy petition > organizers sent in as well. > Stephanie Perrin: We cannot create a species of privacy proxy service provider > that does not have the same requirements to reveal as the non-lawyer variety. > Carlton Samuels: If we think the rules can be mute in malice, we must give it > voice to protect all those who need the service. > Volker A. Greimann: maybe the solution is not to let lawyers provide this > service, i.e. make certain that the rules cover layers when talking about > unaccredited service providers > Kathy: some in the world think we should not move forward - and passionately > so > Volker A. Greimann: that would solve the issue of two sets of rules. just ban > them from providing thi non-legal service unless they agree to follow the > rules > Volker A. Greimann: they can still recommend service providers to their > customers > Philip Corwin: Volker, I think ICANN lacks any power to prevent attorneys from > providing such services to their clients. It's not like they need to be > accredited > Volker A. Greimann: right, but it can force registrars to suspend such > registrations under their terms > Volker A. Greimann: lawyers=unaccredited service provider= trigger for > registrar enforcement of consequences > Volker A. Greimann: "you used a lawyer to hide your identity from the whois? > He is not accredited? Sorry, under ICANN policies, which you accepted, we must > now suspend the domain... > Mary Wong: @Steve, from the ICANN perspective, we do not believe either the WG > or ICANN can deem any law applicable. > Mary Wong: This is not to say we don't agree that this is an important > concern, just that we do not believe we have the legal authority to do so. > Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: something similar to the choice of law requirements > of the UDRP may work > Volker A. Greimann: i.e. those who avail themselves of a defined process must > agree to certain jurisdictions¥ > Mary Wong: @Volker, possibly - but even there it's not a single jurisdiction > that is mandated. > Bladel: Just thankst o Subteam 4. > Mary Wong: And this may be a bit more complicated because there isn't just one > single contract involved. > Don Blumenthal: I think that jurisdiction is beyond our scope . However, I'll > mention that LE is not the only possible source of legal paperwork. > Mary Wong: @Steve, noted. > Mary Wong: This is the version circulated but including Stephanie's comments > from yesterday. > Kathy: Steve - I think people might need to review > Kathy: Tx to Todd for our work together on this version > Philip Corwin: I must drop off to join SO/AC leader call. See you all in > Dublin -- safe travel! > Rudi Vansnick: have to go too ... SO/AC call > Volker A. Greimann: correct Steve, thanks > Volker A. Greimann: that is what i think as well, it just should be clearer > Kathy: A bit more clarity might be good... > Carlton Samuels: Thanks everbody > Frank Michlick: See you in Dublin. Thank you. > Bladel: Thanks, folks. Safe travels. > Sara Bockey: thanks all > Carlton Samuels: Safe travels to Dublin > Graeme Bunton: Thanks all > Chantelle Doerksen: Thanks all! Safe travels to Dublin!

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

* Apologies for the delay in sending this to the Working Group* Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 6 October 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-06oct15-en.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-29sep15-en.mp3> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Alex Deacon - IPC Carlton Samuels - At–Large Chris Pelling - RrSG Christian Dawson - ISPCP Darcy Southwell – RrSG Don Blumenthal-RySG Frank Michlick –- Individual Graeme Bunton -– RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Iranga Kahangama James Bladel -– RrSG Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid -– RrSG Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Paul McGrady –- IPC Phil Corwin – BC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Sara Bockey - RrSG Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Steve Metalitz – IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Theo Gurts - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Val Sherman -– IPC Vicky Sheckler Volker Greimann - RrSG Apologies: Sarah Wyld – RrSG Holly Raiche –- ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC ICANN staff: Glen de St Gery Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Gisella Gruber Chantelle Doerksen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 6 October 2015 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI WG call on the 6th October 2015 Graeme Bunton: Getting some typing sounds. Mary Wong: Please mute your mics if not speaking, thank you! Chris Pelling: afternoon all Theo Geurts: hello all Carlton Samuels: Morning everybody Volker A. Greimann: afternoon Bladel: Good morning! Kathy: Is anyone else hearing a lot of static? Graeme Bunton: Not at the moment, Kathy Kathy: Just me... Chris Pelling: on the voice bridge I get static every now and then Volker A. Greimann: Re: the disclosure framework, it appears one essential element has been forgotten in the drafting: "No disclosure if Requestor has not met the requirements of disclosure, in the opinion of the provider" Graeme Bunton: Nothing from me, Steve. Mary Wong: Yes, this is the document staff received over the weekend and forwarded to the WG on Sunday. Volker A. Greimann: would today be the right time to raise that? Mary Wong: @Volker, we may get to that document later - but LMK if that is a provision that got edited out somewhere? Graeme Bunton: We should hopefully get there as part of item 4 on today's agenda i think. Chris Pelling: ill be leaving at 1700 at Dublin Chris Pelling: just an fyi Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: no, it was not discussed, it was simply forgotten Todd Williams: @Volker: doesn't III(C)(iii) cover what you're describing? Happy to discuss when we get to it. Volker A. Greimann: indeed. Volker A. Greimann: lets do it then Mary Wong: The document is unsync'ed so everyone can scroll as wished. Christian Dawson: Sorry for late arrival. Vicky Sheckler: kathy - as Paul mentioned, the subteam has not had a chance to review together an dthese are issues, not firm firm recommendations Mary Wong: Note that while ICANN may be able to collect the anecdotal data noted here, we won't be able to verify the data or the senders. Stephanie Perrin: You are fading out Steve Volker A. Greimann: Steve, you alternate between normal voice and baraly audible voice Val S.: I hear him fine Chantelle Doerksen: Iranga Kahangama, Lindsey Hamilton-Reid, and Christian Dawson have joined us. Mary Wong: Note #2: The WG can agree to recommend a periodic review, but the details of when, how etc will likely be worked out by the Implementation Reiew Team. Chantelle Doerksen: Osvaldo Novoa has joined. Chantelle Doerksen: Stephanie Perrin has joined. Stephanie Perrin: I dont see that determining data retention periods by jurisdiction is that ambitious. Stephanie Perrin: (for instance) Stephanie Perrin: The isssue of penalties is extremely important, otherwise there are no repercussions for requestors. Bladel: Concerned that we may be creating a loophole, rogue privacy services will restructure as legal advisors in friendly jurisdictions. Chris Pelling: I do not agree with the speaker here Stephanie Perrin: +1 James B Chris Pelling: you are suggesting that they simply can get around this. Chris Pelling: Yet you wish to remove the human rights of the PP service user Chris Pelling: come on...... Stephanie Perrin: Nobody is taking away the right to counsel, we are simply expecting Attorneys to meet the same standards as everyone else. Chris Pelling: the way forward is they are treated the same Chris Pelling: they have to be accredited Chris Pelling: if we have to be accredited Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: I can't speak for the entire EWG but some of us learned a few things that were just not in our experience, knowledge or on our radar. Chris Pelling: +1 Volker Mary Wong: On the type of vulnerabilities and difficult cases (e.g. asylum) - note that the comments on this point were largely from individuals and groups who were concerned about losing the ability to use P/P services. Mary Wong: So to the extent that the WG's final recommendations do not accomplish that (e.g. robust safeguards against overbroad disclosure) perhaps that is a starting point to resolve the topic? Carlton Samuels: @Volker: +1 I support one set of rules for accessing the service. And the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way Stephanie Perrin: This is the poor man's legal service. Carlton Samuels: ..and with malice towards non! Mary Wong: Hopefully my comments help clarify where the concerns (which in the document are reflected as "according to staff") came from. The review we did include all the additional comments that the Save Domain Privacy petition organizers sent in as well. Stephanie Perrin: We cannot create a species of privacy proxy service provider that does not have the same requirements to reveal as the non-lawyer variety. Carlton Samuels: If we think the rules can be mute in malice, we must give it voice to protect all those who need the service. Volker A. Greimann: maybe the solution is not to let lawyers provide this service, i.e. make certain that the rules cover layers when talking about unaccredited service providers Kathy: some in the world think we should not move forward - and passionately so Volker A. Greimann: that would solve the issue of two sets of rules. just ban them from providing thi non-legal service unless they agree to follow the rules Volker A. Greimann: they can still recommend service providers to their customers Philip Corwin: Volker, I think ICANN lacks any power to prevent attorneys from providing such services to their clients. It's not like they need to be accredited Volker A. Greimann: right, but it can force registrars to suspend such registrations under their terms Volker A. Greimann: lawyers=unaccredited service provider= trigger for registrar enforcement of consequences Volker A. Greimann: "you used a lawyer to hide your identity from the whois? He is not accredited? Sorry, under ICANN policies, which you accepted, we must now suspend the domain... Mary Wong: @Steve, from the ICANN perspective, we do not believe either the WG or ICANN can deem any law applicable. Mary Wong: This is not to say we don't agree that this is an important concern, just that we do not believe we have the legal authority to do so. Volker A. Greimann: @Mary: something similar to the choice of law requirements of the UDRP may work Volker A. Greimann: i.e. those who avail themselves of a defined process must agree to certain jurisdictions¥ Mary Wong: @Volker, possibly - but even there it's not a single jurisdiction that is mandated. Bladel: Just thankst o Subteam 4. Mary Wong: And this may be a bit more complicated because there isn't just one single contract involved. Don Blumenthal: I think that jurisdiction is beyond our scope . However, I'll mention that LE is not the only possible source of legal paperwork. Mary Wong: @Steve, noted. Mary Wong: This is the version circulated but including Stephanie's comments from yesterday. Kathy: Steve - I think people might need to review Kathy: Tx to Todd for our work together on this version Philip Corwin: I must drop off to join SO/AC leader call. See you all in Dublin -- safe travel! Rudi Vansnick: have to go too ... SO/AC call Volker A. Greimann: correct Steve, thanks Volker A. Greimann: that is what i think as well, it just should be clearer Kathy: A bit more clarity might be good... Carlton Samuels: Thanks everbody Frank Michlick: See you in Dublin. Thank you. Bladel: Thanks, folks. Safe travels. Sara Bockey: thanks all Carlton Samuels: Safe travels to Dublin Graeme Bunton: Thanks all Chantelle Doerksen: Thanks all! Safe travels to Dublin!

1 0

Refinement of SubTeam 4 Report in advance of Dublin
by McGrady, Paul D. Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

WG Generally: Just to echo what was said on the call this morning and in prior emails, if you believe there is an item on the draft SubTeam Report that has already been dealt with by another SubTeam, please: 1. Let us know and 2. Let us know how it was resolved. That way we can compare the issue & resolution to the respective public comment(s) and scratch it from the list if appropriate. So that SubTeam 4 doesn't spit its wheels unnecessarily, I am asking that any such items be identified by midnight UCT on Thursday. Thanks! SubTeam 4: Please write to gnso-ppsai4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> and let the SubTeam know about your availability for a call on Friday after 11am Eastern. Thanks! Best to all, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

1 0

Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 6 October
by Mary Wong Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call, scheduled for Tuesday 6 October, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Update on planning for Dublin face-to-face WG meeting 3. Review and discussion of Sub Team 4 report (attached) 4. [If time permits] Review and discussion of updated Illustrative Disclosure Framework from Sub Team 3 (attached) 5. Next steps Please note that while the documents for agenda items #3 and #4 have been worked on by a number of members from each Sub Team, the versions being circulated have not yet been fully reviewed by all members of the respective Sub Teams. Other than the addition of page numbers to facilitate WG discussion, staff has made no changes to the two documents as received. Please also find attached proposed revised language for Section 1.3.3 of the WG report, which concerns the question of online financial transactions and was initially the subject of work by Sub Team 2. This revised version is an update from the document first circulated on behalf of the WG co-chairs on 18 September, and represents the co-chairs¹ suggested update based on the WG discussion of 22 September. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

5 4

Fwd: European Court of Justice Declares Safe Harbor Invalid!
by Stephanie Perrin Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Doubtless folks will have seen this important ECJ decision already, but just in case I take the liberty of forwarding links to materials. Certainly will have an impact. Full decision link is in the press release. Stephanie Perrin Very, very good privacy decision from Europe's highest court. (1) National privacy agencies retain authority to enforce EU fundamental rights (2) The Safe Harbor arrangement in invalid for multiple reasons. The practical impact will be to dramatically increase pressure on the US to update its privacy laws (ECPA, Privacy Act, FTC / DPA, FISA, etc). Background on the EPIC website: https://epic.org/privacy/intl/schrems/default.html [PRESS RELEASE EXCERPT] http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.… The Court of Justice declares that the CommissionâEUR^(TM)s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid. Whilst the Court of Justice alone has jurisdiction to declare an EU act invalid, where a claim is lodged with the national supervisory authorities they may, even where the Commission has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of protection of personal data, examine whether the transfer of a personâEUR^(TM)s data to the third country complies with the requirements of the EU legislation on the protection of that data and, in the same way as the person concerned, bring the matter before the national courts, in order that the national courts make a reference for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of examination of that decisionâEUR^(TM)s validity

2 1