April 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
by Sherman, Valeriya April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

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:imagea17300.JPG@f2c065d8.45b3410b]<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.

6 7

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
by Mary Wong April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Thanks for the proposal, Val. Since staff will be circulating a proposed final draft of the Disclosure Framework and Annex for everyone¹s review by Thursday, we¹d appreciate it if WG members could weigh in on Val¹s suggested language before then! 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 From: <Sherman>, Valeriya <vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 16:12 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E > PPSAI Team: > > Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report, we¹d 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 > Requestor¹s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of > the claimed intellectual property is defensible; > > (Note: This language tracks the Requestor¹s 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 Requestor¹s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) > that the Customer¹s 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. > > > <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.

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 14 April 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 14 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-14apr15-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 Justin Macy - BC Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Alex Deacon -IPC Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC Chris Pelling - RrSG David Hughes - IPC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Vicky Sheckler - IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Luc Seufer - RrSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roger Carney - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Todd Williams - IPC Richard Leaning - Individual ICANN staff: Mary Wong Danielle Andela 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 14 April 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 14 April 2015 Chris Pelling:afternoon all Terri Agnew:Jim Bikoff is on audio Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa has joined Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late Terri Agnew:Griffin Barnett has joined Holly Raiche:Is Kathy just on audio and not Adobe? Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined Terri Agnew:Kathy is on both Terri Agnew:Kiran Malancharuvil is on audio Kathy:Just in - Hi All! Luc Seufer:Hi Kathy Holly Raiche:Thanks Graeme Terri Agnew:Vicky Sheckler has joined Vicky Sheckler:sorry i'm late Mary Wong:Thanks, James - we will be sure to highlight both agreeements and differences as best we can, esp in the Exec Summary of the report Frank Michlick:Sorry for joining late. Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined Terri Agnew:David Hughes is on audio Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Holly Raiche:Could the relevant documents be put up please James Bladel:Trusted sender should be an option/best practice. Not obligatoin. But would make life easier for high-volume providers or reporters Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ steve Mary Wong:@Holly, apologies for missing your comment - were you referring to the Annex that Steve is discussing? That should be on your AC screen. Holly Raiche:Nothing is on my screen! Kiran Malancharuvil:@Holly - I see the Annex. You may want to log out and back in? Holly Raiche:@ Krian - thanks - I can see the chat column and the column on the right - just nothing in the middle! will try again Terri Agnew:@Holly, did logging back in help? Volker Greimann:Michele is right... I do that _all_ _the_ time! Michele Neylon:yes you do Michele Neylon:bloody German :) James Bladel::) Michele Neylon:Kathy - isn't that sort of inferred? Luc Seufer:don't you worry Michele, once the accreditation will be in place Volker will have to pinky swear he won't do it again. Kathy:Maybe but everything in brackets, I think, is in a "maybe" Mary Wong:@Kathy, we can call that (and other square bracketed language elsewhere) out specifically as needing community feedback - since that's the "device" we are using to indicate places where the WG has not yet reached consensus? val sherman:+1 kiran Vicky Sheckler:given the discussion, it seems there are pblms with requiring a specific jdx Luc Seufer:hum that's basic international law. You can serve us a foreign court order all you want, if it hasn't follow the exequatur process we won't act on it. Kathy:+1 Volker - and under the Providers' laws Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ Michele Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree. Overspecification is a problem. Appreciate the clarification from Volker. Michele Neylon:people will hopefuly raise issues via the comments Michele Neylon:ie. the comment period James Bladel:Need to drop the call a bit early. Looking forward to the publication of the Initial Report. Important Milestone for this group! Kathy:and removal of the word "only Kathy:"only" Mary Wong:@Kathy, wouldn't removing the "intent to deceive" language be preferable? So the standard remains "knowingly false representations"? Kathy:Tx for the good discussion of the Annex, Steve! Kathy:@Mary: I think so. Also puzzling over the word "only" when that edit is made... Terri Agnew:Carlton Samuels has joined Vicky Sheckler:think we should leave "only" b/c I think the reps cover the issues kathy mentioned. But I need to confirm this Carlton Samuels:Morning all. Had a whale of a time coming getting on Holly Raiche:Morning Carlton Vicky Sheckler:(i.e. leave in the document) Kathy:Hi Carlton! Mary Wong:@Kathy, @Vicky, our read of it (not being the drafters) is that retaining "only" while striking out "intent to deceive" would make it clear that there is a single standard for the process, ie a false rep was made knowingly. Holly Raiche:I'd be happy with privacy service as well Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ val Kathy:I think we put the whole paragraph out for public comment - with a paragraph to ICANN Community sharing the questions we have and the input we are seeking val sherman:how is it easier for the provider to balance and figure out which purpose is main? Michele Neylon:exactly - that's why I'd prefer "privacy service" instead of "privacy" by itself Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ steve metalitz that usigng privacy swallos the rule Kathy:Right! Michele Neylon:but you can't expect us to put our clients in danger .. Alex Deacon:we can't have vague language here and work hard to ensure we don't create a loophole where, to borrow Steve's wording, the exception swallows the rule. Michele Neylon:I know we've had requests for reveal where if we had our client would have ened up dead Michele Neylon:the request => other motivation eg. doing them harm Carlton Samuels:Why would we care aabout the motivation? We have concealed personal data by design and effected by contract. All we need do is to demand you do not break the contract without well-founded cause. And we're giving guidance as to possible reasons for breaking contract; slam dunk cases or when in doubt, seek advice. Holly Raiche:AGre - maybe word in the revere - the reason mainly NOT in relation to the trademark/IP issue as being claimed Kathy:I think we all agree with Volker -- but how to reflect in the language? Holly Raiche:@Kathy - agreed Kathy:What if we remove the words [solely] and [mainly]? Alex Deacon:"for the avoidance of doubt..." Vicky Sheckler:need to be careful that we don't fall into last week's issues about unncessarily expanding this beyond the narrow pretext purpose of this paragraph val sherman:true, Vicky Mary Wong:It's the same language in all three places now, Steve. Kathy:where did the automation language go? Mary Wong:@Kathy it is still at the bottom of the document; we haven't changed it pending final discussion (per notes on the right from last week) Kathy:@Mary: tx! val sherman:Kathy's latest language captures that possibility. Kiran Malancharuvil:I would like to continue the discussion on attestation on the list, but I don't think we have time today Mary Wong:We will remove the "human review" phrase unless there are objections/suggestions. Kathy:Good call! Kathy:Tx Steve! Kiran Malancharuvil:Alternatively, int he spirit of getting it out, I'm okay with what it states and minority views repped Kiran Malancharuvil:thanks Steve! Kiran Malancharuvil::) val sherman:thanks all! Carlton Samuels:Thanks all Kathy:@Mary: can you put it in italics first?

1 0

before removing...
by Kathy Kleiman April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Hi Mary, The following comment in chat flashed by at the end: "Mary: We will remove the "human review" phrase unless there are objections/suggestions." Sorry, but I have to object because I am missing the context. Could you kindly post the old paragraph and the new paragraph and we'll all take a close look? Best and tx, Kathy

2 1

PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation
by Sherman, Valeriya April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all: Following up on our productive discussion earlier this week, we’d like to offer a suggestion to modify the “attestation” provisions (II.A.6.c; II.B.7.d; and II.C.6.c) to require a statement by the requestor specifying his/her authority for making the request, or basis for agency if he or she is not the rights holder. For example: “Where the signatory is not the rights holder, he/she must attest that he/she is an authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and having the authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request.” We could even spell out the statement for the signatory to make in conjunction with each request : “I attest that I am the rights holder / authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and have the authority to make the representations and claims in this request.” These statements of authority and agency are to be made in good faith, under the penalty of perjury – just like representations forming the basis for the request and the requestor’s promise to use the data disclosed only for limited enumerated purposes – and the falsity of these statements would be redressable by the method(s) we agree on. We believe this approach fairly balances the considerations expressed by various WG members and look forward to your thoughts. Best, Val 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:image143f58.JPG@618ca7b2.49807542]<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.

16 39

Agenda and documents for WG call on April 14, 2015
by Mary Wong April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for the next WG call scheduled for Tuesday 14 April 2015: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Update on deadlines and dates regarding WG Initial Report (WG chairs) 3. Discuss draft Annex to Disclosure Framework (see attached) 4. Discuss language concerning ³pre-textual² disclosure requests (see Section III.C(5) in attached document) 5. [if time permits] Finalize language concerning attestation and automation 6. Next steps/next meeting The attached draft Disclosure Framework includes Kathy¹s suggested edits around providing evidence of authorization, with Val¹s further suggested amendments all changes up to this point have been accepted into the current document (with existing square bracketed language/options retained). The attached draft Annex is the original document as proposed, and as sent around last week as well. 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 07 April 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 07 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-07apr15-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>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 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 Volker Greimann – RrSG Alex Deacon –IPC Stephanie Perrin – NCSG Phil Corwin – BC Chris Pelling – RrSG Carlton Samuels – ALAC Richard Leaning – no soi David Hughes – IPC Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche – ALAC Vicky Sheckler – IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Luc Seufer – RrSG Michele Neylon – RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roger Carney – RrSG David Heasley - IPC Apologies : Don Blumenthal – RySG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC James Bladel – RrSG Paul McGrady – IPC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins 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 07 April 2015 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 07 April 2015 Mary Wong:I can hear you Mary Wong:Clear as a bell :) Michele Neylon:Graeme I can hear you Michele Neylon:though I'm not listening Holly Raiche:I'm not hearing anything - but then noone is talking? Michele Neylon:I've got music on Chris Pelling:clicking noised on bridge Frank Michlick:I'm listing to a podcast ;-) Chris Pelling:ok clicking seems intermitent, if it gets on my nerves ill calll back in Chris Pelling::) Frank Michlick:Will stop that though when this call starts. Frank Michlick:hello! val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge Graeme Bunton:Thanks Val Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm a bit late Nathalie Peregrine:Todd Williams and Vicky Schedkler have joined the call Kathy:Sorry Graeme -- too many holidays! Nathalie Peregrine:Michael Shoukry has joined rhe call Kathy Kleiman:I think we should bar it, but how do you know? Mary Wong:Yes it's at the end Nathalie Peregrine:Terri Stumme is on the audio bridge Mary Wong:Last para in blue (sorry, having audio and voice issues) Kathy Kleiman:Good paragraph - can we move it up in the doc? Darcy Southwell:I agree with Graeme from a service provider's perspective. Stephanie Perrin:I think the threshold for asking for a reveal has to be a lot higher than for the others.... Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the room Carlton Samuels:Morning all Stephanie Perrin:Therefore, we need to add language here. I have no objection to the service provider, for instance, automatically forwarding any requests. Stephanie Perrin:"any steps in the process" makes it over-broad... Stephanie Perrin:"in the absence of human review" also makes me a bit nervous, we would have to define human review. Kathy Kleiman:New II.D Kathy Kleiman:+1 Volker Kathy Kleiman:quality and quantity steve metalitz:We ashould also find automated high volume refusals to disclose and automated high volume responses from customers objectionable. Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: Higher threshold for reveal +1. vicky sheckler:disagree w/ stephanie and carlton Michele Neylon:whoever is being noisy can you please use the mute button Carlton Samuels:I can't hear Steve....I'm on A/C Audio only Volker Greimann:true, Steve Nathalie Peregrine:Please all mute mics when not speaking. Kathy Kleiman:But it doesn't cover everything... Stephanie Perrin:Steve you are fading in and out Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes, attestation at all levels +1 Stephanie Perrin:agree with the belt and suspenders Stephanie Perrin:people are disappearing frequently Chris Pelling:i left and came back Chris Pelling:way better Chris Pelling:no clicking at all Stephanie Perrin:IS everyone having fade in and out or do I need to redial? Nathalie Peregrine:If you are having issues with AC audio, please dial into the phone bridge, or we can dial out to you. Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy Chris Pelling:I agree with Kathy Mary Wong:The words "high volume, automated processes" are from the RAA. Stephanie Perrin:In other words, Humans do use computers to send things out.... Luc Seufer:Just as an FYI the French DPA allows AFNIC to disclose private data but the request and the disclosure need to be reviewed by a human. Chris Pelling:I would agree with Michele, as long as each notice is reviewed by a LIVING and breithing person it is ok Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: Let's err on the side of TMI; keep it and look to placement Mary Wong:Yes val sherman:+1 Graeme and Michele -- if there is human review, the communication should not be considered automated Mary Wong:With suggested edits from Volker Kathy Kleiman:very responsive Carlton Samuels:@Steve: There was the use of the word 'solely' there as well Kathy Kleiman:@Steve: I think you summarized the concerns well Mary Wong:Would "human rights (e.g. FoE or privacy)" work? vicky sheckler:that is not a pretext Holly Raiche:Agree with Volker and Stephanie Volker Greimann:Stephanie +1 Michele Neylon:shes' cutting out Volker Greimann:what is violated by the reveal is always the privacy., but now always human rights Chris Pelling:I agree Michele Neylon:privacy is a human right though ? Volker Greimann:so if it needs to be violated, the threshhold should be met val sherman:The mere desire of the customer to preserve their privacy cannot be sufficient to refuse a legitimate request, meeting all other criteria of these standards steve metalitz:(5) only comes into play once requestor has met "threshold for "'reveal" (actually, for disclosure) Holly Raiche:Yes Michele - but what is being protected is privacy - which should be the default position Volker Greimann:Exactly vicky sheckler:strongly disagee w/ stephanie. that is not a pretext, which is what the provision todd wrote was trying to addres Carlton Samuels:@Graeme: I would prefer the use of the word 'mainly' or a phrase that removes the [artificial] limit Michele Neylon:Holly yes but the privacy or lack of it can stem speech steve metalitz:No, that does not make sense, Stephanie, in light of our discussions over the past 16 months Holly Raiche:@ Michele - true enough, but what Stephanie is saying is that people ought to be able to choose to protct their personal informtion unless there is a demonstrable reason otherwise Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1 Should be no need to prove harm to protect privacy Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - the language is there - just use privacy at the end vicky sheckler:there is a general rule about when the p/p customer can request refusal of the disclosure, agqain AFTER the requester has provided the requisite information about a violation of the requrester's rights Mary Wong:The framework language since this was first presented has been premised (in Section III) on the customer providing reasons to the provider NOT to disclose. Mary Wong:As Vicky notes, this happens AFTER a provider receives a full and accurate request (per the framework requirements) vicky sheckler:Kathy - rights to authroship are also a human right. privacy does not defacto trump any other tights no matter what vicky sheckler:rights to authorship are in the human declaration of human rights Kathy Kleiman:legitimate rights and protections (e.g., freedom of expression and freedom of association).” Stephanie Perrin:I would be happy to provide edits after the call... Carlton Samuels:We agreed all applicants following the same set of rules can have a P/P registration. We cannot now say to maintain it post registration and in the absence of credible evidence of infraction of rules, one must prove harm to retain it! Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1. Let's go for more explicit. Err on the side of TMI here. vicky sheckler:i agree w/ Steve. feels like we are going backwards Kathy Kleiman:+1 Volker Holly Raiche:That is how I understood what Volker was saying vicky sheckler:or we get rid of item 5. steve metalitz:Looking forward to seeing your language Stephanie. Kathy Kleiman:@Vicky - I think we are getting close; and it is very important Mary Wong:@Stephanie, isn't that example you give already covered by the current language? Esp if we say "human rights (e.g FoE and rights to privacy)"? Kathy Kleiman:Todd's language is good - just tweaking Stephanie Perrin:I agree, we are just talking about tweaking Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - are we not really saying that respect for privacy through genuine tests before reveal is allowed serves to protect the other rights Todd Williams:I'm back. Sorry. I'll check the transcript on what I missed. Mary Wong:Note also footnote #2, which adds Val's suggestion for what the form of attestation might look like (bottom of pg 4) Kathy Kleiman:self-attestation, hmmm Kathy Kleiman:it seems to have some limitations Stephanie Perrin:@ Holly yes that is the bottom line, this service protects privacy and confidentiality of customer data in order to protect other fundamental human rights (including Privacy) Mary Wong:To clarify - the main text specifies WHAT the attestation requires, the footnote suggests HOW this might look Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - Tks vicky sheckler:stephanie - or to protect those that violate others rights. p/p services are abused by wrondoers too. Well over a majority of the sites we monitor that engage in widespread infringement are behind p/p serivces Mary Wong:Note that those ccTLD operators whose disclosure requests policies we could find requires at most "authorized representative" and certification/attestation that any disclosed info will only be used for the specified purpose. vicky sheckler:we need to find the proper balance, not keep saying that one right trump[s over anythign else Stephanie Perrin:@ Vicky I understand that. If a requestor can make a valid case to prove that, the customer data is revealed. Holly Raiche:@ Vicki - I think we are all aware of the abuse of p/p services, and I don't think access to information by law agencies is problematic for anyone in this WG Stephanie Perrin:Indeed, we are not talking about LEAs here, we are talking about civil action. Holly Raiche:@ Vicki and Stephanie - agreed vicky sheckler:Kathy - that seems like more than what cctld operators are requiring. Not sure why we can't follow the ccTLd oeprators lead here Mary Wong:We have not come across any published policy that requires documentation other than ID and TM registration cert (for example). Mary Wong:Published ccTLD policy, I mean. Chris Pelling:its putting an enforcable action for being able to sue the requestor Stephanie Perrin:Is this not the first time that we have looked at the issue? Why follow the ccTLDs? vicky sheckler:+1 w/ Val Mary Wong:For example, CIRA (.ca) requires a form with name, address and reasons to be stated, accompanied by a notarized/certified copy of a TM registration plus proof of requestor identity. Mary Wong:@Stephanie, it was just to see if we can find guidance or common practice that, if appropriate, we can consider utilizing. Chris Pelling:sorry, its having the paperwork to show it Stephanie Perrin:@Mary, and I do agree that the CIRA example is better than many Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: But we are setting up probably a whole new scale for reveal requests - probably far beyond ccTLD requests Carlton Samuels:@Val: Would it mean the same if there is some registration of requestor's connection to the rights owner? Chris Pelling:@Steve its not really documents, its a single page in most cases vicky sheckler:i need to drop off. sorry Stephanie Perrin:This process definitely has to set the standards for the agency represnetation. Otherwise, we know that services will be outsourced to the lowest price. Kathy Kleiman:@All: It's an accountability issue Stephanie Perrin:Yes it is an accountability issue. val sherman:Carlton -- i'm not sure I understand your question. Mary Wong:@Kathy, agreed on scale - so question is whether any particular requirement is both practical and justified in the context. Volker Greimann:caveat: unless I have to... Frank Michlick:thank you Carlton Samuels:@Val: To relieve seeing contracts fto attest standing, could a pre-reg work? Kathy Kleiman:Tx Graeme and All! Darcy Southwell:Thanks!

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 7 April 2014 -- re "Annex"
by Metalitz, Steven April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Just a brief note that could facilitate our discussion tomorrow with regard to the "Annex" to the draft disclosure framework. (Thanks Mary for recirculating this text.) As the title spells out, the document sets forth "Some options for resolving disputes arising from alleged false statements leading to improper disclosures." The Annex is not intended to address any appeal mechanism regarding a disclosure request, but only the consequences of a request wrongfully granted because based on false pretenses. In this document, "some" options basically boils down to two options. Under the first option, a requestor would agree to submit such disputes to an arbitrator. (The other party to the dispute, the privacy/proxy service provider, would presumably agree to this method as well, as part of its accreditation process.) The document provides some more detail about the arbitration process, though certainly much more work would need to be done to implement it. Under the second option, the requestor would agree, for purposes of such wrongful disclosure disputes, to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in the territory where the service provider is located. Our discussions over the past few weeks may have made the last paragraph of the Annex document less relevant. It is based on the assumption that, under either option, not all requestors would necessarily be required to agree. As specified in section I.b.iv of the overall document, a service provider could, if it chose, institute a "trusted requestor" program to facilitate processing of requests from reliable sources. The last paragraph of the Annex says that a service provider could, if it chose, make such an agreement a condition of entry into a "trusted requestor" program, if it had one. This last paragraph may be irrelevant if the group decides that some dispute resolution process should be available whenever the service provider believes it has wrongfully disclosed based on false pretenses. But ultimately the group still needs to decide whether there will be such a mandatory dispute resolution process, and if so, which process it will be (arbitration, or litigation in the service provider's home court). Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:05 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 7 April 2014 Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call on 7 April 2014 is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Continue deliberations on Category F, specifically: (a) attestation/signatory for Requests; (b) Section III.C(5); (c) non-use of high-volume automated processes; and (d) the Annex. 3. Next steps/next meeting Please also find attached an updated version of the draft disclosure framework for agenda item #2. This version accepts all the changes up to last week (excluding prior suggested changes to the type of information required on a Requestor), and adds the recent language suggested by Val on attestation, Todd and Volker on III.C(5) (in square brackets as two alternate versions), and a final paragraph/sentence on the automation issue, based on language previously suggested by Todd and a suggestion by James to look at the specific language in the 2013 RAA applicable to this type of activity. The draft Annex 1 is also attached - it preserves the original text that was presented to the WG several weeks ago, since the WG chairs thought it would be easier to review that way in order to ensure that everyone is clear about the options being offered. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>

5 6

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

Today's call
by McGrady, Paul D. April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

With apologies in advance to both the staff and team, I will be in and out of today's call as travel allows. Regards, 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.

2 1