March 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Compilation of P/P provider responses
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows: 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful? 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you¹d like to add to a response you¹d provided previously, please send it along and I¹ll make sure it gets added to this document. Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

9 11

Revised Reveal Doc
by Kathy Kleiman April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy

14 38

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 31 March 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 31 March 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-31mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick - Individual Justin Macy - BC Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Alex Deacon -IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC Luc Seufer - RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Carlton Samuels - ALAC Richard Leaning - no soi James Bladel - RrSG James Gannon - NCUC David Cake - NCSG David Hughes - IPC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Terri Stumme - BC Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG Holly Raiche - ALAC Vicky Sheckler - IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Terri Agnew ** 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, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 31 March 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 31 March 2015 Graeme Bunton:Grabbing a tea, brb James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Afternoon everyoner Graeme Bunton:James, welcome to the group. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Thanks Graeme. James Bladel - GNSO:Wow, sounds like I need to catch up on the list I guess. :) Luc Seufer:Yeah let's stop the lawyering! Graeme Bunton:Sensible advice, thanks Steve Luc Seufer:You golden tongues Terri Agnew:the following have joined: Jim Bikoff, Luc Seufer and Kiran Malancharuvil James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Thanks Steve for the welcome. I have no conflicts with regards to this WG. Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined Kathy:Standard of evaluation is also an open issue, Steve Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined Kathy:Authority and accountability Terri Agnew:Chris Pelling has joined Chris Pelling:apologies for my tardiness Chris Pelling:BST threw me :p Kathy:sure - as long as III.C.5 is still on our agenda... Terri Agnew:Phil Corwin and Carlton Samuels has joined Carlton Samuels:Morning all steve metalitz:"Given the importance of these interests, and given the nature of the balance that this policy strikes, evidence of the use of automation (i.e., the absence of human review) by any of the parties involved (Requestors, Service Providers, or Customers) to complete any of the steps in the processes outlined below shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this policy." James Bladel - GNSO:You can tell who is using the Adobe audio feature. Interventions start with "Can you hear me?" James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:=) Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined Kathy:II.A.6 Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner (e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity). Carlton Samuels:@Volker on providing actionable information +1 Carlton Samuels:It is about trust Marika Konings:Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there are ccTLDs that put similar requirements on requestors? Maybe there are some examples the WG could look at to see how this is dealt with in other environments? Marika Konings:Especially those that are in environments with stricter privacy laws such as Europe? Stephanie Perrin:+1 we are talking about the authority that the requestor brings to the action.... Mary Wong:@Kathy, "and counsel" would limit that category to lawyers advising the TM owner, not any other authorized representative, yes? Stephanie Perrin:(I meant +1 to James Mary Wong:So, e.g., to go back to Susan Kawaguchi's example, she would not be able to sign on behalf of FB? Kathy:@Mary - the attorneys can certainly sign off on the letter but not draft them Kathy:... but this creates authority, accountability and enforceability Mary Wong:@Kathy, so any request where a TM is owned by a corporation must then be signed by inhouse or external counsel, if a corporate officer with signing authority is not available? Just clarifying, thanks Mary Wong:@Val, that's what the current draft tries to say, but we can amend it to reflect your specific suggestion. Mary Wong:Thanks for clarifying, Steve - we will make the fact that these are options clearer. Stephanie Perrin:I just checked my 20 dollar bills....still signed by the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada....I doubt he signs each one. The other important thing is to know the jurisdiction the person is acting from.....if we release personal data to a jurisdiction where there is no privacy protection, and the agent is not closely bound in legal liability to the trademark holder, what recourse do we have? Terri Agnew:Tatiana Khramtsova has joined Kathy:I think Todd responded to it well Volker Greimann:"specific evidence demonstrating" -> "sufficient information to assume" James Bladel - GNSO:My concern is specific to the term "Human Rights." We could simply replace it with "protected legal rights" or something simliar. Mary Wong:On III.C(5) - referrring back to Marika's earlier question in the chat; does anyone know how ccTLDs in more privacy-protected jurisdictions handle these requests? Stephanie Perrin:I can elaborate on that example if you like Mary Wong:Looking, eg. at Nominet it seems quite general: http://www.nominet.org.uk/uk-domain-names/registering-uk-domain/legal-detai… Mary Wong:We can gather a few examples, perhaps from CIRA and a few European ccTLDs. Stephanie Perrin:The problem being that if, for instance, I am running an anonymous blog on the evils of the religious group I just fled, releasing my new name links me to the old identity. Kathy:@James, but human rights encapsulates the "complex case" issues we were talking about (for so long!) Kathy:@Steve - lang "facts and circumstances" is good language Kathy:@Mary - to earlier question, yes, attorneys should supervise and sign off - because ultimately someone with high accountability needs to be responsible for the personal data being revealed Kathy:... and keep the obligations limiting use of that data Kathy:@Steve: request for reinclusion of earlier Human Rights Discussion] Mary Wong:@Kathy - noted. We can re-insert from the last version Volker Greimann:on mail people seem more court than in person Paul McGrady:Thanks Steve! Thanks all! Graeme Bunton:Thanks Steve Alex Deacon:Thank you Steve.... Darcy Southwell:Thanks. James Bladel - GNSO:Thanks. David Cake:thanks all

1 0

Apologies
by Susan Kawaguchi March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Sorry I missed the call this morning. Daylight savings time confused me once again! I will listen to the transcript but I am very concerned with the automated request scenario that we are trying to solve for. 1) If there is a defined process to submit a request are you saying that a proxy vendor may receive 10,000 of the same request? 2) Or are these requests being sent through other means (such as an abuse email address) instead of the defined process? 3) What is the volume? 4) Do you receive hard copy requests 5) How does a proxy vendor handle those requests now? Can you define computer generated? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064

2 1

Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
by Mary Wong March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved and is being circulated as a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG. Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

18 36

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
by Holly Raiche March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Hi Phil I agree - it IS about assurance - as long as that assurance in credible. Sorry if I misled everyone Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 1:18 pm, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > With respect to -- > > Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics. > > Sorry if this is harsh, but I made no argument and if you perceived one that was your misreading of what I wrote. > > I was raising questions. I am not dismissing the concerns raised by Kathy and seconded by you and others. I was questioning whether requiring that the request be signed by an individual at a certain level of authority would effectively address it. > > It seems to me that this discussion is less about the credentials of the requestor but some assurance that the process leading to the request met a minimum standard, and that some attestation by the requestor that a certain amount of due diligence has preceded the request might be a more effective approach. > > Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal > Virtualaw LLC > 1155 F Street, NW > Suite 1050 > Washington, DC 20004 > 202-559-8597/Direct > 202-559-8750/Fax > 202-255-6172/cell > > Twitter: @VlawDC > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > -----Original Message----- > From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58 PM > To: Phil Corwin > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests > > Hi Phil > > And that is our concern. If someone is signing off on notices by the 'hundreds per day', then it will be difficult to accept that much thought has been given to any particular notice. And we are talking about revealing information that, for whatever reason, that person/company values enough to go to the trouble of using a p/p provider. As the Whois Report acknowledged, there are quite legitimate uses of P/P services - which, under privacy protections, people are entitled to use. > > I am not an expert on costs of rights holders. But I am not terribly comfortable with accepting that it is okay to reveal private personal information when the threshold test is based on a computer program or the trainee in the company. Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics. > > It's not my starting point. My starting point is the right to privacy unless good reason can be established. > > Holly > > > On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:22 pm, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > >> If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it. >> >> The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day. >> >> So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests? >> >> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >> Virtualaw LLC >> 1155 F Street, NW >> Suite 1050 >> Washington, DC 20004 >> 202-559-8597/Direct >> 202-559-8750/Fax >> 202-255-6172/cell >> >> Twitter: @VlawDC >> >> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank >> Michlick >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM >> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests >> >> On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: >>> What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for >>> requests to proxy vendors? >> Hi, >> >> I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with >> invalid whois complaints a while back. >> >> Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated >> mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and >> registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; >> submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here. >> >> Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been >> authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the >> companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by >> people working for the trademark holder. >> >> Best regards, >> Frank Michlick >> -- >> Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. >> p: (514) 315-1050 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: >> 03/27/15 _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15

2 1

Decision on F2F meeting in Buenos Aires
by Mary Wong March 27, 2015

March 27, 2015

Dear WG members, In view of the varying concerns that have been voiced and concluding that it will be very difficult to hold a productive F2F meeting where there will be sufficient representation from across the different groups and interests, the WG chairs have decided not to schedule a separate F2F meeting for the WG in Buenos Aires. That said, we will likely still need a fairly intensive working session at around that time, in light of our Work Plan and progress. As such, the chairs would like to suggest that instead of the usual 90-minute community session during the ICANN meeting, we aim to hold a 2-hour working session that will of course still be open to the community to observe. The idea is to have such a session scheduled for the Wednesday afternoon, at around 4/4.30 6/6.30 p.m. Buenos Aires time, so please do hold that slot in your schedules, whether you plan to be there in person or participate remotely. Thanks to everyone for their input! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Following up on possible expert input
by Mary Wong March 25, 2015

March 25, 2015

Hello everyone, The WG chairs have asked me to follow up on the possibility of inviting subject matter experts to assist the WG with our deliberations. As the Working Group Guidelines contemplate that these decisions are to be made by the WG as a whole, we cannot extend any invitations without the WG¹s agreement to do so. As we are currently trying to finalize the Initial Report, it would therefore be helpful to the WG, if you plan to suggest names, to also provide the following: * A brief description of the specific topic(s) the expert is expected to address * How the expert¹s qualifications and/or expertise on the matter (e.g. legal, technical) would address a gap in the WG¹s research, representativeness or other aspect of our work * Whether it would be more helpful to have the expert provide a written briefing note to the WG in lieu of, or prior to, a call * How much time (if a call is preferred) to allocate and any scheduling preferences (please see the latest draft Work Plan, attached) Here is the relevant provision from the WG Guidelines: "If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community." Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 1500 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-24mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick - Individual Justin Macy - BC Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Holly Raiche - ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Alex Deacon -IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Susan Kawaguchi - BC Terri Stumme - BC Phil Corwin - BC Luc Seufer - RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Susan Prosser - RrSG Michael Palage-RySG Vicky Sheckler - IPC David Heasley - IPC Carlton Samuels - ALAC Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Richard Leaning - no soi Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP James Bladel - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Danielle Andela Yolanda Jimenez Terri Agnew ** 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, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 24 March 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 24 March 2015 Terri Agnew:Hello everyone, this meeting will being in 20 minutes Terri Agnew:sounds loud and clear Stephanie Perrin:sounds great Holly Raiche:Morning all Stephanie Perrin:Morning Holly! Chris Pelling:afternoon all Vicky Sheckler:hi val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge val sherman:hi Vicky val sherman:and all Terri Agnew:Welcome Alex Deacon Alex Deacon:Hello all... Terri Agnew:on Audio Terri Stumme and Susan Prosser Terri Agnew:Welcome Darcy Southwell Terri Agnew:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined audio steve metalitz:I have not voted and I do not vote for a Friday session. Kiran Malancharuvil:When did the "second" doodle poll go out? Luc Seufer:Paul there will be beers and steaks, just come! Mary Wong:@Kiran, on Thursday 19 March Kiran Malancharuvil:There are beers and steaks at more pleasant venues as well. Volker Greimann:a windowless room at that Volker Greimann:Kiran, i like your suggestion Luc Seufer:yeah but a bunch of merry fellows make up for it Volker Greimann:PPSAI working meeting with beer and steaks.... I have a feeling we will get a lot done Kiran Malancharuvil:That was Luc's suggestion. I have no desire for this meeting. Mary Wong:@Volker, we actually have reserved the nice room - the one on the top floor with all the windows :) Kiran Malancharuvil:@Mary - It looks like the poll is now 7 to 7? Mary Wong:We got two other votes by email for Friday Volker Greimann:I know the room and it is worth the extra time to have at least some time during that meeting in a room with a view. We will be back in the darkened cloister soon enough Kiran Malancharuvil:Or we could spend that time not in a meeting... Kathy:Would someone like to read current IIIC5 text? Mary Wong:@Todd, from the staff perspective the "answer" is that we didn't feel we could delete III.C.5 entirely given last week's discussion. Luc Seufer:it seems in C.5 that's the registrant who is proactive Mary Wong:Sorry, just saw that I think that should be "clear and convincing" Terri Agnew:Jim Bikoff has joined audio Mary Wong:Suggestion - add Customer's provision of a reasonable defense as an illustrative e.g. of adequate reasons for refusal under C(2)? Mary Wong:And change C(5) to specifically address the human rights concern Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Vicky. Good point about the distinction Carlton Samuels:Morning everybody. Dropping in for a limited time. Duty in paid work calls Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton steve metalitz:@Stephanie, this applies only to disclosure to the requester. Stephanie Perrin:we should make that crystal clear then Mary Wong:@Stephanie - see D. below Mary Wong:Sorry, E. Kathy:@but those private purposes can include harassment, anticompetitive activity, and Kathy:removal of criticism Kathy:it happens a lot... Kathy:so once the reveal is done, we have disclosed the Customer's address - and that's a big deal Holly Raiche:It is really aboutequal standards. Are we not recognising a person's right to privacy - proecing their identity unless there is a clear (insert agreed language) reason Carlton Samuels:I think the balance is to be fair to all interests and achieve this without resorting to the judicial process. Mary Wong:@Steph, re human rights language - no decision as of yet as to where to put it. Staff drafted the alternatives/description that follows in the next couple of pages for discussion. One possibility is to craft C.(5) to do this. Kathy:No- I dont' think it meets all of the concerns Kathy:+1 Stephanie Carlton Samuels:@Steph: Yes +1. Let's state the broader principle. We need to ensure we don't disconnect a right from a person anywhere without due process. Todd Williams:@Stephanie: the title is "Disclosure standards", and we've already made the distinction elsewhere b/w "disclosure" (to the complainant) and "publication" (to the world) Stephanie Perrin:It bears repetition here Todd, as this is getting to be a long and somewhat arcane document. Carlton Samuels:We need to establish room to determine what is a reasonable balance. And not run pell mell into granting advantage to one group that ordinarily they would need a court to decide. Holly Raiche:2 Carlton +1 Mary Wong:@Kathy, UDRP and URS are mandatory administrative proceedings where a professional neutral makes the decision. Stephanie Perrin:If we were drafting legislation, we would be charied by our legal drafters to avoid repetition. Since this is not a law, but a standard that will be read by a lot of non-legal practitioners, I would argue for clarity, clear exposition of first principles, and a certain amount of repetition where it is important to remember the balance of rights. Luc Seufer:@Mary a similar system for disclosure/reveal would make sense to me Kathy:@Mary: in the real world, this would go to court... before a reveal. Kathy:so we are setting the standards... Kathy:Tx Mary! steve metalitz:+1 to Todd that pretext could be delat with specifically if necessary steve metalitz:dealt with Kiran Malancharuvil:I would very much prefer to deal with the text in Section II on agency. Why are we restricting that discussion to the list? Stephanie Perrin:+1 Carlton, we do need to remember that we are attempting to set up a process that avoids Court. Graeme Bunton:wasn't attempting to restrict, Kiran Luc Seufer:we will, after we have heard about Berryhill's experience ;-) Kiran Malancharuvil:Yeah exactly Luc. So we skip over it today so we have time to discuss Berryhill's "expertise"? Holly Raiche:We are also trying to make life a bit easy for registrars so they have clarity on when to reveal, as well as certainty (or close to) for the registrant on whether and in what circumstances their details will be revealed to the requestor Stephanie Perrin:@Holly +1 indeed! Volker Greimann:Steve +1 Stephanie Perrin:@Kiran I am confused by your query re Mr. Berryhill. Kiran Malancharuvil:Are we skipping over discussions on Section II in order to make more time to discuss the use of "experts" such as Mr. Berryhill? What is unclear about that query? steve metalitz:@Kathy, one option is to present annex in draft report as "some options" as its title states and ask their views. Perhaps not ideal but possible. Kiran Malancharuvil:Because that's fine, but I would have appreciated a heads up on that. Holly Raiche:@ Paul - suggested words? Mary Wong:Staff suggests not specifying titles - these may mean different things in different types of legal jurisdictions. Mary Wong:e.g. "attorney" (not a term used in all jurisdictions nor do all require a "bar" membership to practice law); "General Partner", "Principal" ... Kiran Malancharuvil:There are a lot of non-attorney's on the list that are representatives of this "side" of the issue Kiran Malancharuvil:"this side" being the IP requestor side Kiran Malancharuvil:This is not a court proceeding. It is not a subpoena... it does not need ot be restricted to agents of the court Susan Kawaguchi:I am not an attorney and have submitted a substantial number of reveal requests Vicky Sheckler:@kathy - are you suggestion that rightsholders that can't afford a legal rep can't use this process? I know rightsholders who address online infringing activity themselves. Susan Kawaguchi:and have dones so with full knowledge of the law Kiran Malancharuvil:There is a misplaced sense of superiority associated with this section IMO Luc Seufer:Merci Darcy Southwell:Thanks!

1 0

@EXT Agenda and revised Disclosure document for WG meeting on Tuesday 24 March
by Leaning, Richard March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Due to unforeseen circumstances I will be able to join the call today. Kind regards Dick ________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong Sent: 23 March 2015 15:43:04 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and revised Disclosure document for WG meeting on Tuesday 24 March Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next WG meeting on Tuesday 24 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss proposed F2F facilitated meeting in Buenos Aires 3. Continue discussion of Category F: draft Disclosure Framework for IP rights-holders (revised draft attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting Please note that the attached revised draft Disclosure Framework has been updated to reflect only the following sets of revisions: (1) those presented to the WG on 16 March and updated following that call, including in specific regard to Section C(5); and (2) newer edits sent by Kathy yesterday (22 March). Our understanding is that some WG members may not have received Kathy’s revisions, so we have incorporated them all into this latest draft version. In addition, I reproduce here in full Kathy’s email accompanying her suggested edits: "Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy” Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************

1 0