April 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Translations question
by Kathy Kleiman April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Hi Mary, I was wondering if you could tell us how long translations of the Interim Report will take - and in what languages ICANN will be able to provide it? Best and tx, Kathy

2 1

Agenda for WG call on 28 April
by Mary Wong April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for our next call, scheduled for Tuesday 28 April 2015: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Review draft Initial Report (circulated on 23 April and posted also at https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw) 3. Next steps Thanks to Holly for sending in her thoughts on the 23 April document; our understanding is that other WG members may also be circulating comments prior to the call tomorrow. Please feel free to do so to enable other members to review your comments as much in advance as possible. 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

5 4

FW: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments
by Glen de Saint Géry April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Resent to mailing list -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: lundi 27 avril 2015 14:16 Subject: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments Folks - some suggestions/questions - Move the definitions (now in para 17 of the Exec Summary) to the front - to explain how we are using the terms. Add the term requestor to mean the individual/organisation requesting contact details for the customer. Remove all mention of the word reveal since this report is using the term 'disclosure' to mean revealing details of the customer to the requestor. Also, add definition of relay to mean the p/p provider notifying the customer that the requestor is trying to contact the customer. In Para 7, 3rd dot point: Why would a customer not be told when the provider has received a disclosure or publication request. Further, it is not clear why that dot point implies that a customer might not choose to cancel its registration for both a disclosure and publication request Para 16, First dot point: I'm not sure about the use of the term 'abuse' in the first sentence. I think I know what is meant, but maybe something a bit less harsh such as 'misuse or abuse' Para 20: Is there agreement on the process of de-accreditation of a p/p provider? This assumes that there is, but I"m not sure we have agreed on what is meant. Will a p/p provider be monitored for compliance, or will compliance with this specification be complaints driven? Have we come to agreement on what to do when a complaint is upheld - about what, and what will be done. The text does mention that ICANN Compliance will have a role - which is? Holly

2 1

III.C words "but not limited to" need to go back in too
by Kathy Kleiman April 27, 2015

April 27, 2015

Hi All, As we work to close the document, I would like to point out another change that was proposed, but not discussed or accepted. It's the deletion of the words "but not limited to" in the opening of III.C. This was proposed by Val, not discussed on our call, and not accepted by the group. I would like to ask that the initial words ("including but not limited to"), in the draft for so long, be continued... as they are standard drafting language --- and do not limit the broad sets of responses so many supported today. Best, Kathy III.C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of the following: ***

9 9

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments
by Darcy Southwell April 27, 2015

April 27, 2015

Regarding Holly¹s comments: * Agree we need to move the definition section to the beginning of the summary. * Re para. 7, third bullet, I think there are times when a P/P provider will not notify a customer, such as with certain LEA requests for Disclosure. In addition to Holly¹s comments, and some grammatical edits and specific questions in the attached, I think we should consider more careful use of defined terminology: * Throughout the Initial Report we refer to P/P providers in a number of ways, e.g, P/P services, P/P provider, Service Providers, service providers, accredited providers, ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service provider, etc. To be consistent and avoid confusion when this goes out for public comment, we should probably stick with just one defined reference for a privacy/proxy provider. * We use both ³requestor² and ³requester² I think what is really meant is ³requester² but in any event we should be consistent with our terminology. Thanks, Darcy From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM To: "Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments Resent to mailing list -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: lundi 27 avril 2015 14:16 Subject: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments Folks - some suggestions/questions - Move the definitions (now in para 17 of the Exec Summary) to the front - to explain how we are using the terms. Add the term requestor to mean the individual/organisation requesting contact details for the customer. Remove all mention of the word reveal since this report is using the term 'disclosure' to mean revealing details of the customer to the requestor. Also, add definition of relay to mean the p/p provider notifying the customer that the requestor is trying to contact the customer. In Para 7, 3rd dot point: Why would a customer not be told when the provider has received a disclosure or publication request. Further, it is not clear why that dot point implies that a customer might not choose to cancel its registration for both a disclosure and publication request Para 16, First dot point: I'm not sure about the use of the term 'abuse' in the first sentence. I think I know what is meant, but maybe something a bit less harsh such as 'misuse or abuse' Para 20: Is there agreement on the process of de-accreditation of a p/p provider? This assumes that there is, but I"m not sure we have agreed on what is meant. Will a p/p provider be monitored for compliance, or will compliance with this specification be complaints driven? Have we come to agreement on what to do when a complaint is upheld - about what, and what will be done. The text does mention that ICANN Compliance will have a role - which is? Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 21 April 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 21 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-21apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr>apr<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick - Individual Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Alex Deacon -IPC Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC David Hughes - IPC Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Chris Pelling - RrSG Luc Seufer - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roger Carney - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Sarah Wyld - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Todd Williams - IPC James Gannon - NCUC David Heasley - IPC Paul McGrady - IPC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Vicky Sheckler - IPC David Cake - NCSG Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong 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 21 April 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 21 April 2015 Mary Wong:Loud and clear, Graeme! Mary Wong::) Graeme Bunton:Gettin more tea, brb Osvaldo Novoa:Hello Bladel:Getting more Red Bull brb. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Morning/Afteroon/Evening val sherman:Hello all Holly Raiche:Hello all val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge Graeme Bunton:Thanks Val Mary Wong:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid also sends apologies. Terri Agnew:Philip Corwin has joined audio Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels Carlton Samuels:Morning everybody Kathy:How long will the public have to submit comments? Kathy:tx! Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio Bladel:I'll dial in. Bladel:I'm in. Kathy:Graeme - original changes here posted by Val. Kathy:May be good to start with Val? Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer Luc Seufer:Thank you Terri Kathy:+1 James James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I would support that. Stephanie Perrin:+1 James. There is so much going on, and our work is important Holly Raiche:+ 1 for James James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:23:59 UTC is the magic number right =) Bladel:Dparting for Buenos Aires on teh 12th of June. If you can believe that. Terri Agnew:Welcome Chris Pelling Chris Pelling:apologies fir tardiness Holly Raiche:The other question is whether we will have reached consensus on the major issues within the next few days Bladel:If Staff feels they will have comments ready for review by BA, then I'm good with that. Mary Wong:@James, that will depend in large part on when the comments come in :) Bladel:Mary: Assume 75% will come in the last 48 hours. As STeve noted, it is part of the ICANN culture. Mary Wong:No comment :) Holly Raiche:Mayabe even use the BA meeting to discuss the report within and among the constituencies Mary Wong:We provide the GAC with monthly updates on our PDPs - so they will know when we release the Report. Bladel:did my audio drop? Carlton Samuels:No sound James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Ahha scared me there Carlton Samuels:Aaaah James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Yes and many of us will be v busy with CWG and CCWG in BA. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy on commnet disabilities being designed +1 Mary Wong:Note that the period immediately post-Bs As won't necessarily be less busy, as the CWG/CCWG/ICG will still have work items for comment Mary Wong:There is also no longer a reply period in the new 40-day public comment period. Kathy:@Mary: right, but many public comment periods are now longer than 30/40 days Stephanie Perrin:That was my point, if you miss this comment period, you have missed the boat. Carlton Samuels:The At-Large is challenged to mobilise the edge even with less complex matters Holly Raiche:All he more reason to be sure that all the issues have reached consensus first - Stephanie Perrin:So are the NCSG Carlton! val sherman:Yes -- here Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - +1 Mary Wong:@Steph, everyone - hence my note to not expect that post-Bs As will be less busy, so extending the public comment period may or may not help with the time crunch issue :) Mary Wong::( I mean Holly Raiche:The issue is that the only reason mentioned is IP Carlton Samuels:I have to go. But let the record show for the proposed C.2 and C.3 is an IP lawyers dream. But this is not about IP alone. It actually narrows the scope for disclosure which is not a good thing. I would leave those alone. let it remain "the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in questio" val sherman:thank you:) James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks Val gives a good basis on the driver for the language Carlton Samuels:And this "3) [the Provider has found adequate reasons against disclosure]". No change required Terri Agnew:Paul McGrady has joined audio Carlton Samuels:I have to go. Must make a living. Mary Wong:13 April language: " the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question" Terri Agnew:goodbye Carlton steve metalitz:@Kathy can you provide a concrete example of a reason that would be "adequate" but not embraced within Val's language? Paul McGrady:Sorry to join late Mary Wong:Original language: "that the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided compelling reasons against disclosure" James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:If we start adding this level of specificity do we have to go back and look at the rest of the document and add specificity to other setions, this seems like a lot to do at this stage and would probably require extention of timelines Mary Wong:@James, it was always open to everyone to suggest modifications to any open section. Luc Seufer:Agree with Bladel. Chris Pelling:I agree whole heeartidly with JamesB Chris Pelling:Registrars are not judge nor jury Bladel:and unfortunately more common Luc Seufer:I am not found of the "slam dunk" cases but there is the blatant infringement concept in both French and Lux. laws which we could use Terri Agnew:Welcome Tatiana Khramtsova Alex Deacon:The issue boils down to the word "adequate" - its just to vague. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:oops James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:no i ssed James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:nope connection probs James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:=) Terri Agnew:@James , let me know if you need a dial out Bladel:Adobe is really letting us down today. Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy, trying to make this bullet proof for bad faith actors is the real problem we are wordsmithing over... James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Ah Ill pop it in the chat =) Ok on a philospphical level I support Kathy's points. And on a practcal level I spport the other James. We need to avoid wordsmithing here even when its from a position of good faith. There is a world outside of IP (And I'm very much a supporter of IP rights by the way) that we need to be able to respect. We cant put the providers into a positoin of having to have a team of lawyers working on these requests as may be the case in larger providers that may be dealing with large volumes of requests. I think that we need to be as paractical as possible here, lets go back to the original language that was largely agreed on and had broad support. Mary Wong:An earlier version had "adequate" versus "sufficient" (after "compelling") Holly Raiche:We did use the word compeelling - as a more polite phrase than slam dunk James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks Graeme. Alex Deacon:@kathy - would you example not be covered by vals (ii) ? i.e. defensible? James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:=) Holly Raiche:@ James +1 val sherman:James -- isn't that covered by i -- not infringing? Kathy:@Alex, defensible? Maybe the child did paint Mickey Mouse and maybe it was posted. Holly Raiche:So theanswer to my question - better without examples Terri Agnew:Welcome Vicky Sheckler Kathy:@Alex, there are different rights on both sides - some for IP owners and other sources of protection for Customers/Registrants; we have to allow both steve metalitz:@James What is the difference between "we don't see infringement" v. We have a reasonable basis to believe there is no infringement? Bladel:Steve: I don't want to put people on the record as offering a legal opinion whether or not infringement exists. More that we do not see it, even if it may actually exist. Mary Wong:How about, instead of "Provider has a reasonable basis for believing" we say "Provider believes there is a reasonable basis"? vicky sheckler:have to jump again. sorry Kathy:@Mary: how do corporations "believe" -- sorry, but a drafting issue... Mary Wong:@Kathy, just trying to offer a bit more flexibility, to tie in with a Provider's (subjective) judgment rather than make it seem as though a Provider needs to provide a legal basis. Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - we did like the word compelling rather than ideas of reasonable belief (however phrased) steve metalitz:@Kathy, bracketed language shows differing views, not which came first Bladel:i don't even remember the original language at this point. Mary Wong:@Kathy I don't think we've ever done that, even for other places in the report (not just this document) where there has been differences among the WG val sherman:From my perspective, there was no consensus on this point -- it just wasn't yet addressed steve metalitz:@James B, the original language was"compelling reasons to refuse disclosure" Kathy:@Holly and Mary: I see your point on adding words like "adequate," "compelling," "sufficient" Darcy Southwell:I agree with Kathy, Blade, Gannon, and Stephanie. For providers, the front-line personnel who handle these reveal requests are not lawyers and are not in a position to make legal judgments about infringement or non-infringement. I would support going back to using the word "compelling reasons to refuse disclosure" in the original language of III(C)(2). Holly Raiche:@ Darcy - absolutely agree Mary Wong:Sorry - very old and vestigial Mary Wong:The fuller context for these open questions can be found between pp. 50-53 of the 29 Jan 2015 version of the draft Initial Report. Kathy:This is confusing - it might be good to slave the page to the screen now.. Alex Deacon 2:agreed Kathy:tx! steve metalitz:pages 51-52 of the text on screen Mary Wong:Section 1.3.2 (pp 12-13) for the questions Mary Wong:pp 51-52 for the actual context/fuller discussion Luc Seufer:I agree to agree steve metalitz:Middle of page 54, third bullet -- escalation of relay requests Mary Wong:And current draft language on escalation - page 13 of draft report James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I'm happy to send it to comment. Darcy Southwell:I agree it should be published for comment as it is today. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I would hope that we could form a good base for further discussion based on the public comments (Which I would hope will be peentiful and constructuve =) ) Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Mary, it would help to point to these bibbits in the report, given the length of the report. Frank Michlick:Thank you Graeme & everyone. Kathy:@Mary and All: in III, how did the words "but not limited to" become deleted? James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks all good call. Mary Wong:@Kathy, do you mean the disclosure text? Paul McGrady:Thanks! Luc Seufer:merci Darcy Southwell:Thanks. val sherman:Thanks! Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you and Bye Kathy:@Mary, yes the Reveal text Mary Wong:That was in Val's suggested edits Kathy:Then let's please put in back in because there is not agreement

1 0

Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015
by Mary Wong April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as follows; please also note the additional information/suggestions that follow. 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework intended for public comment Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached) 3. Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report see below 4. Next steps/next meeting including circulation of final draft Initial Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and publication date for public comment The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes: (1) the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of authorization (as noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April document); and (2) for clarity, the retention of ³square brackets² only with reference to language that still reflects two or more options (since the entire document will be open for public comment in any case). For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions from the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29 January 2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion at the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the suggested answers below for discussion/agreement/other comments. Graeme and Steve¹s suggestions are highlighted in blue, with references to the context for these remaining questions (as page numbers from the draft Report) following in bold and underlined. The actual phrasing of each question can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary of the draft Report as well. Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P Providers: * The standard for maintaining a P/P provider¹s designated point of contact: - the person or team must be ³capable and authorized² (per the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the IRTP <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en> ) (see pages 50-51 of the draft Initial Report) * The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an abuse report is made to the designated point of contact while the requirement under Section 3.18.1 of the 2013 RAA <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> (³taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond²) had been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has been superseded by the WG¹s specific recommendations on Relay and Disclosure (pages 51-52) * To ensure provider contactability P/P providers should be required to publish contact information on their website, modelled after Section 2.3 of the interim Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri vacy-proxy> in the 2013 RAA (pages 51-52) On Escalation of Relay Requests: * On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure of electronic communications retain current language in draft Initial Report (including bracketed options) for public comment. > The current draft language reads as follows: >> "While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider¹s obligation to act >> in the event it becomes aware of a persistent delivery failure, the WG has >> yet to agree on obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by >> a requestor. The following is the current language under consideration by the >> WG, with the options included in square brackets: > ³As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned requirements > concerning a persistent delivery failure of an electronic communication have > been met, the provider [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of > notice to its customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the > most appropriate means of forwarding such a request [and to charge a > reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee is to be > borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider shall have the right > to impose reasonable limits on the number of such requests made by the same > requestor.²² (pages 53-54) Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of the WG¹s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and publish in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a customer¹s contact details will be Published due to the customer¹s breach of one or more of the Terms of Service. While this is not a Charter-based question, WG members are encouraged when they come to review the final draft Initial Report to consider this question and provide additional feedback if necessary. 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

7 9

New version of Disclosure Framework document and Annex
by Mary Wong April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hello everyone, As discussed on the WG call earlier this week and as reflected in the latest version of our Work Plan (attached), we are sending you the latest version of the Disclosure Framework document and associated Annex, in the hope that between now and our next call we can iron out the remaining points of difference or uncertainty, especially on Section III.C and the Annex. In these latest versions, we have accepted the changes up to and including those that were presented for WG discussion up to this past Tuesday (including on attestation); you will see that we have also done the following: * Moved up the automation language (with a slight tweak to the ³human review² phrasing to reflect the WG discussion of 7 April); * Retained the last version of the language in III.C(2) & (3) as well as added as an alternative for discussion Val¹s latest suggested language for the same; * Used Todd¹s latest suggestion (with a slight change to the pretext phrasing) in III.C(5); and * Tried to clarify the Annex in line with the WG discussion this week. Please use these latest documents in continuing the on-list discussions and in preparation for our next WG call on Tuesday. 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

2 3

FW: PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
by James M. Bladel April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Not sure why this message didn’t hit the list. Apologies if you rec’d two copies. Thanks— J. From: James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:21 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E While I have no specific concerns with the changes for III.(c)(2), the changes for III.(c)(3) are concerning and I would either like to (a) hold publication of our Initial Report so we can discuss Tuesday, or (b) revert to the previous language. Thanks— J. From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:31 To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E All, I think there are a lot of major language shifts taking place a) after our calls and b) in hopes of bringing final language into the Report that is being finalized today. Unfortunately, I think Val's language for III.C.2 and especially III.C.3 has enormous consequences and cast a major change to language that has remained essentially unchanged in our many weeks of discussion. The original language was essentially brought to the WG, accepted by the WG and ready to be put out for comment by the WG -- with brackets (as in so many other parts of the report) -- but all the time with the language of the committee that drafted it. Now we are being asked to review such changes a) under a fast deadline and b) with no in-person comment. I have to object - and call for the original language to stay. If we want to meet next week to talk about these new proposed changes, let's do that. But we have no precedent of accepting major changes without exploring them in person and on the calls -- as we have explored every other significant change. Best, Kathy : Thanks Kathy. On III(C)(2) and (3): I don’t think we ever had agreement on the language. “Adequate” was still bracketed precisely b/c we hadn’t agreed on that standard (I think the initial language was “compelling”, and I think it had changed a couple times in between). In the spirit of trying to address some of our loose ends and leave as little language bracketed as possible, I think Val’s proposal for III(C)(2) and (3) does a good job of finding a “third way” between the “compelling” camp and the “adequate” camp. Rather than pick b/w those two standards, it just says: let’s use the mirror of what the Requestor has to allege under II(A)(6)(a), II(B)(7)(A), and II(C)(6)(A). As a way of bridging the current gap that we’ve got, that seems reasonable to me: if the language is good for the Requestor, why wouldn’t it be good going the other way? Or, to put it another way: why would that language “seem a little ambiguous and hard to prove” going one way but not the other? I agree with you that we don’t want a lot of additional work and discussion at this point. I guess where I disagree with you is on which of the two options that is on the table – 1) fighting it out b/w “compelling” and “adequate” or 2) incorporating language that we’ve agreed to elsewhere – is more likely to lead to additional work and discussion. TW. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:02 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E Hi Val, Thank you for new language as we work to close the report for publication. May I ask a few questions? In III.B.2 - the change from [existing] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its reasons for refusing to disclose to [new/proposed] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose -- seems to raise the bar on the response of the Provider to the Requestor -- and there may be many Requests! So let me as, what are you thinking of in terms of the "specific reasons" that a Provider might have to give? How extensive or detailed would you like their answers to be? Re: III.C.2 and 3 I think the existing language is quite good -- with apologies, because I know the genuine good will in which the changes are offered, bringing in a Customer's "belief" and the Providers "belief" seems a little ambiguous and hard to prove. I look forward to looking at III.B.2 with you... but re: III.B.3, I think we had pretty good agreement on the existing language and these new proposals may result is a lot of additional work and discussion. Best, Kathy 1. On 4/14/2015 4:12 PM, Sherman, Valeriya wrote: PPSAI Team: Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report, we’d like to propose the following, hopefully non-contentious suggestions to III.B, C, and E. We look forward to your thoughts. B. … (1) … (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose. (3) … C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of the following: (1) … (2) the Customer has objectsed to the disclosure and has providesd [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question for believing (i) that it is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (Note: This language tracks the Requestor’s standards warranting disclosure, and is the opposite side of the same coin.) (3) the Provider has found provides [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure for believing (i) that the Customer is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that the Customer’s use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (4) … (5) … … E. If refusal to disclose is based on objection to disclosure by the Customer, Requestor be informed of the reasons for objection. (Could be consolidated with III B (2)). Valeriya Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> | Attorney at Law 202-973-2611 phone 202-263-4326 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She is not admitted in the District of Columbia. [cid:part4.06080404.07070902@kathykleiman.com]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

3 2

Section III-C-(5)
by Terri Stumme April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Perhaps I am over-simplifying, but since agreement has not been reached on the current language, and III-C-(3) actually gives the provider quite a bit of lee-way to decide against disclosure, I propose the following: the Provider has found, specific information, facts and/or circumstances that reveal the Requestor's trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer's contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer's personally identifiable information. 1. *Personally identifiable information* (PII) is any data that could potentially *identify* a specific individual. Any *information* that can be used to distinguish one person from another and can be used for de-anonymizing anonymous data can be considered PII. -- *Terri Stumme* *Intellligence Analyst*

6 9