Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Download

gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org

March 2015

30 participants
32 discussions

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 03 March 2015 at 1500 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 03 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC. at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-03mar15-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan>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 David Heasley - IPC Chris Pelling - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton – RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Michele Neylon- RrSG Holly Raiche – ALAC Vicky Scheckler – IPC Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC David Cake – NCSG Volker Greimann – RrSG Alex Deacon –IPC Sarah Wyld – RrSG Carlton Samuels – ALAC Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Susan Prosser - RrSG Apologies : Don Blumenthal – RySG James Bladel - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine ** 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, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 03 March 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 03 March 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Hello all! Nathalie Peregrine:@ Holly, the operator is dialing out to you now Holly Raiche:Morning all Val S:Hello all! David Heasley also on audio bridge. Nathalie Peregrine:Perfect audio Nathalie Peregrine:noted Val! Chris Pelling:Good afternoon all Chris Pelling:can the document be unlocked please Chris Pelling:so we can zoom in ? :) Nathalie Peregrine:Done, Chris Chris Pelling:thanks :) Frank Michlick:It's warm here in florida ;-) Frank Michlick:But I'm heading back to Monreal on Thursday Frank Michlick:montreal Graeme Bunton:I spent last week in Mexico, and that was much much nicer than home Kathy Kleiman:Switchboard working well - I got in quickly... Frank Michlick:nice, I've never been to Mexico yet Vicky sheckler:hi Nathalie Peregrine:Extra apology from James Bladel Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Corwin has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Darcy Southwell is on the audio bridge Stephanie Perrin:Apologies for tardiness Nathalie Peregrine:Darcy has now joined the AC room Michele Neylon:ALLEGED Michele Neylon:ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT Michele Neylon::) Holly Raiche:Agre with Michele (and Kathy) - add ALLEGED Stephanie Perrin:Ditto. Michele Neylon:that was me twice Michele Neylon:though I'm sure Kathy would agree Kathy Kleiman:Tx for clarification III D, Steve! Kiran Malancharuvil:Sorry I'm late, hello everyone. Justin Macy:Great thanks! Mary Wong:Other groups of requestors identified included LEA (as Michele is saying) and groups like anti-phishing or consumer protection groups. Michele Neylon:he has spoken previously .. Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Dick. He shouldn't be restricted to speaking only on LE requests. Volker G.:Hi Dick, the problem is how do we differentiate between "good LEA" and "bad LEA" Holly Raiche:Agree with Michele - the difficult issue is the reveal issue when access is not sought in relation to criminal matters Kathy Kleiman:@ Mary: will it be possible to post my comments in the Adobe? Michele Neylon:LEA can contact An Garda Siochana and they'll get a request to us we can act on Volker G.:Michele, you see why they think this is difficult: most outsiders will not even be able to spell that... ;-) dick leaning:we will need to go with Interpols members - 190 or so i think will be a start Michele Neylon:Volker and that's my problem why? :) Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the call Mary Wong:For non-US WG members, the DMCA is the US statute that deals with requests to online service providers to take down allegedly infringing copyrighted content Carlton Samuels:Howdy all. My apologies for late coming in. Unavoidably delayed Mary Wong:There is similar legislation in a number of other countries. Michele Neylon:not in all unfortunately Michele Neylon:there's nothing in Ireland Mary Wong:@Michele, yes - it's not a universal scheme Kiran Malancharuvil:Do gangs have trademark attorneys? (untapped client base??) Stephanie Perrin:@Kiran, absolutely, and lots of money to pay for them! Michele Neylon:Kiran - don't you watch "The Good Wife"? the drug dealer in that can afford very nice suits and expensive lawyers Kiran Malancharuvil:I wonder if anyone every TM'd "the crip side" Kiran Malancharuvil:@Michele - I don't watch TV! Stephanie Perrin:I understand they settle their tattoo wars here in Canada rather differently, without the aid of lawyers.... Nathalie Peregrine:Susan Prosser has joined the call Michele Neylon:Kiran - did I mention TV? :) Kiran Malancharuvil:Well... to clarify, I haven't seen "The Good Wife" ! Mary Wong:@Todd, I believe your read is the intended interpretation. Mary Wong:(i.e. while the Customer must state its reasons for not wanting disclosure the Provider is not obliged to pass that on or to do so verbatim - although it may.) Mary Wong:On Section 512(h) of the DMCA - although a requestor is obliged to seek a subpoena from a court, the court does not have discretion to investigate or refuse/ Kathy Kleiman:@Todd and Mary: language clarification would be great! Carlton Samuels:@Speaker: In this context when it comes to privacy and disclosure it must be for the 'fringe' that takes pride of place! Kathy Kleiman:@Graeme: agreed! Plus "safety valve" is a new term and concept -- one to think about Kiran Malancharuvil:I think we need to be careful about building processes that are built around a very minute minority of cases. steve metalitz:@Stephanie, as a matter of historical fact, Whois has been publicly accessible since its inception. Kathy Kleiman:@Kiran, due process for majority and minority cases is never a waste of time.... as I truly believe you agree Stephanie Perrin:Steve, I certainly understand that the directory is public, but the data elements may not be. THat is the issue. Kiran Malancharuvil:Not a waste of time, I NEVER said that, but we can't build a process on a hypothetical outlying case. Carlton Samuels:If the process developed is fair to the 'fringe' then I would consider all others as adequately covered Carlton Samuels:@Holly: I agree. There was a time 'compelling' meant 'clear and present danger' is anticipated. Kathy Kleiman:hnjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjgvbbbbbbbbb Kathy Kleiman:Sorry, cat on the keyboard :-) Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - the issue now is whether it could mean issues involving trade marks! Vicky sheckler:the fact is that whois has been public since its inception. very diffferent than other cases where the inofrmation was never public Kiran Malancharuvil:@Kathy - same thing when Lily is on the call with me! ;) Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - so your cat is participating :) Kiran Malancharuvil:WHATTTTTTTTTTTTT Kiran Malancharuvil:SHOCKING Kathy Kleiman:@Holly, yes! Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm framing that page of the transcript. Kathy Kleiman:+1 Carlton: "fair to the fringe" is also how US speech law operates... Volker G.:whois was intended as a technical service, not a general information service. Sysadmins would use it to find other sysadmins if something did not work right. Carlton Samuels:@Michele: +1. Too much on the provider and it makes the decision to terminate that much easier. Stephanie Perrin:What Michele said is precisely my concern. The cost is not sufficient to guard against abuse, therefore there needs to be third party review paid separately. Vicky sheckler:we need to be aiming for a simple process to obtain contact information where there is reasonable basis for the request, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse Kiran Malancharuvil:@Vicky - correct and simply stated Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - agree. And at Vicki - the trick is working out what is a 'reasonable basis' Frank Michlick:Keep in mind that anything that increases cost for registrars will increase cost for consumers. Most registrars have very low margins when it comes to domain name reigistrations. Some (i.e. Tucows) that have not charged for whois privacy in the past have started doing so over the last year or so. Frank Michlick:So the question is what additional value or protection it creates compared to the cost of doing so and if that's reasonable. Kathy Kleiman:@Graeme: can I ask Michele a quest? Vicky sheckler:agree w/ michele that this can't be too complicated steve metalitz:@Graeme, David Hughes (not on Adobe) asks fto be in queue. Graeme Bunton:Got it Mary Wong:@Kathy, IIIB gives the provider some options/discretion in deciding which response is appropriate. There does not seem to be a default disclosure requriement. Todd Williams:Lowered my hand because Mary just made the point I was going to make on IIIB. Graeme Bunton:Thanks Todd Kathy Kleiman:Who is talking? Mary Wong:David Heasley Val S:David Hughes Mary Wong:Oops, sorry, Hughes! Kathy Kleiman:@Mary and All, then we should certainly clarity that disclosure for default (when political minorities, religious minorities, ethnic etc. ) is not an automatic loss and Reveal Carlton Samuels:@David: You're looking for a solution between "Do nothing" and "Wait for the judge"? Stephanie Perrin:And you expect that to be easy? steve metalitz:@Carlton, David Hughes is not on Adobe. Kathy Kleiman:@Carlton and earlier: "fringe" is key - because that is where they political and minority groups live (and yes, they use, criticize and critque trademarks and trademark owners) Holly Raiche:@Carlton - Agree - it's about what, in Vicki's erm, is reasonable, or in the words of the draft is 'copelling' Kathy Kleiman:But the Friday after, we are sleepwalking.... Kiran Malancharuvil:I have to drop off. Thanks so much everyone! Kathy Kleiman:The IGO F2F was hard because we were soo tired Kathy Kleiman:(Singapore Michele Neylon:I'd prefer the Friday before Michele Neylon:or even over the weekend Holly Raiche:@Stephannie - ALAC Exec meets Friday morning - but free in the afernoon Kiran Malancharuvil:I won't be able to add dates to my travel to BA. Michele Neylon:but the Friday after for me simply doesn't work Mary Wong:Note that we do need to confirm this soon as Constituency Travel is starting to set deadlines for nominations of supported travelers. dick leaning:am with Michele - Friday before please Darcy Southwell:F2F the Friday or weekend before ICANN 53 makes more sense to me. Holly Raiche:Friday before really is beter Val S:+1 - Friday before is better Stephanie Perrin:GNSO is on the weekend...either Friday before, or after.... Philip Corwin:Also would prefer Friday prior, rather than after Chris Pelling:from a remote pov, friday before is better certainly Chris Pelling:doodle poll Frank Michlick:Thank you everyone. I probably won't be in Buenos Aires, so I may only participate remotely. Stephanie Perrin:Anyone for Thursday before? Michele Neylon:Doodle it Frank Michlick:Thank you everyone. Michele Neylon:Stephanie I could do the Thursday before *possibly* not sure Mary Wong:Will do, thanks Val S:thanks all Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Graeme Chris Pelling:Thanks Graeme Carlton Samuels:Thanks Graeme. Bye all David Cake:thanks all

1 0

Agenda for WG meeting and updated Work Plan (Re: Updated document re disclosure standards)
by Mary Wong March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Following from Steve¹s email, here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 3 March; please also note the attached revised Work Plan for this WG, which takes into account recent discussions and updates our timeline for publication of our Initial Report and delivery of a Final Report to the GNSO Council: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Finalize discussion on draft document on discussion standards 3. Discuss remaining questions concerning Category F (Reveal) - see below 4. Discuss proposed WG face-to-face facilitated meeting at ICANN53 5. Next steps/next meeting To assist with the WG¹s discussion of agenda item #3, here are the outstanding questions for Category F, as phrased in the draft Initial Report under discussion (they can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary): * Should there be uniform minimum standards for accredited P/P providers to apply in determining when to Disclose or Publish, or in verifying a requestor¹s identity? * Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express requests from LEA in the provider¹s jurisdiction not to notify a customer? Should there be mandatory Publication for certain types of activity e.g. malware/viruses or violation of terms of service relating to illegal activity? What (if any) should the remedies be for unwarranted Publication? * Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express requests for Disclosure for the purpose of sending cease and desist letters or notices of formal legal proceedings against the customer? Should customer notification in such cases be mandatory? 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 From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met(a)msk.com> Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 09:54 To: "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated document re disclosure standards > PPSAI WG members, > > Attached please find an updated version of the document Graeme and I > circulated prior to last week¹s meeting. This updated version includes three > or four wording tweaks, intended to reflect the discussion on last week¹s > call. Looking forward to further discussion on tomorrow¹s call. > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met(a)msk.com> > Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57 > To: "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F -- updated status report and text > for discussion > > >> >> PPSAI WG members, >> >> This follows up on our note of Feb. 3 providing a status report on subgroup >> discussions among some IP interests and p/p service providers regarding p/p >> disclosure standards. To reiterate, the group¹s work is not meant to obviate >> or displace the work of the larger PPSAI WG on this issue rather, it is >> meant to constructively contribute to the discussion by producing one >> proposal on this issue for the larger group¹s consideration. >> >> In light of further consideration and of the need to move forward the WG >> discussion on Category F, we present the attached document that we hope will >> help provide a framework for discussion of the disclosure issue in the WG. >> We emphasize that this is not a proposal from IPC, the Registrar Stakeholder >> Group, or any subset of either, and that we fully anticipate the text to be >> modified and improved through further discussion at the WG level. (We also >> acknowledge that the WG may find the proposal wholly unsatisfactory but hope >> that it will at least help advance debate.) >> >> The attached is put forward as a starting point, to use intellectual property >> infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum disclosure >> standards, in a framework that addresses (1) a service provider process for >> intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would have to meet in >> order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles governing >> service provider action in response to a conforming request. >> >> We look forward to the discussion of this document among WG members. >> >> Graeme Bunton >> Steve Metalitz >> >> >> From: Metalitz, Steven >> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:57 PM >> To: PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org) >> Subject: Category F -- status report >> >> Dear WG colleagues, >> >> As you know, several PPSAI Working Group members, including representatives >> of the IPC and privacy and proxy service providers, have endeavored to >> develop a collaborative proposal on the minimum standards for disclosure >> (Category F). The group¹s work is not meant to obviate or displace the work >> of the larger group on this issue rather, it is meant to constructively >> contribute to the discussion by producing one proposal on this issue for the >> larger group¹s consideration. This is an update on this sub-group¹s progress. >> >> But first, a little background: At the face-to-face meeting of the PPSAI >> Working Group in Los Angeles on October 10, 2014, one important topic was >> minimum standards for disclosure of contact information of customers of >> privacy/proxy services who may or may not be using their private domain name >> registrations to carry out infringing or other abusive activities. >> >> Prior to the face-to-face meeting, IPC participants in the Working Group >> circulated a proposal on this topic. A responsive redline was circulated to >> the WG by Volker Greimann. >> >> Following extensive discussion of these proposals and of the topic in general >> at the face-to-face meeting, a sub-group of WG participants have continued >> this discussion. The sub-group includes participants from the IPC and >> privacy/proxy service providers. Meeting by teleconference and working over >> e-mail, the sub-group has sought to develop a text that could be jointly >> presented to the PPSAI Working Group as a framework for further discussion on >> the issue of standards for disclosure. >> >> Some progress has been made, and the sub-group is continuing its efforts with >> the goal of producing a document for presentation to the PPSAI Working Group >> as soon after the Singapore ICANN meeting as feasible. If such a document is >> completed, it is hoped that it would be a constructive contribution to >> eventual WG approval of a set of recommendations on ³Category F² for >> inclusion in the Draft Report of the WG. >> >> Unlike the documents discussed by the full WG last October, the framework >> under discussion does not purport to establish a single general policy for >> when disclosure of contact information in cases of alleged abusive activities >> would be available. Instead, it seeks to focus more narrowly on intellectual >> property infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum >> disclosure standards. The framework would describe (1) a service provider >> process for intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would >> have to meet in order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles >> governing service provider action in response to a conforming request. While >> considerable progress has been made in the first two areas, a number of >> critical issues remain to be resolved in the third area, and discussion has >> not been concluded on any of the areas. >> >> The expressed common goal of the discussion group participants is a framework >> that would give requestors a higher degree of certainty and predictability as >> to if, when and how they could obtain what level of disclosure; that would >> preserve for service providers a sufficient degree of flexibility and >> discretion in acting upon requests for disclosure; and that would include >> reasonable safeguards and procedures to protect the legitimate interests of >> customers of accredited proxy/privacy service providers. Of course, >> balancing these interests is the difficult task before our working group. As >> stated, participants in the discussion group hope to be able to make a >> constructive contribution to the WG¹s efforts to do so. >> >> Graeme Bunton >> Steve Metalitz >> >>

2 1