April 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Apologies
by James M. Bladel April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Sorry folks, but I am tied up in another meeting for at least the next 1-2 hours, and will miss today's call. ------------ James Bladel Vice President, Policy Go Daddy jbladel(a)godaddy.com Mobile +1 319 899 1776 Twitter: @Bladel Skype: jmbladel Typical Time Zone: UTC-5 (US Central Daylight) [cid:6C259213-BCC0-48A5-A8D3-72EE9512CF5E] This email message and any attachments are intended for use only by the recipient(s), and may contain sensitive information. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original message and any copies.

1 0

Illustration of our opposition to automated complaint systems
by Volker Greimann April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Hello, as there was still some confusion about why we are asking for this, here is an excerpt of an illustrative example we received today: "We write on behalf of Eastbay, Inc. (“Eastbay”) regarding the registration and use of the domain name ymlp.com which contains the famous Eastbay trademark." Clearly someone has done his homework on this one. It goes on making the usualy claims under the threat of perjury, etc. Hope this helps framing the issue. Volker

1 0

Agenda and documents for WG call on 7 April 2014
by Mary Wong April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

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

1 0

Sample ccTLD request procedures (Re: PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation)
by Mary Wong April 3, 2015

April 3, 2015

Dear all, Following on the last call, staff thought it might be helpful to compile a sample of ccTLD procedures for dealing with third party requests for registrant information and contact details (recognizing, of course, that ccTLD policies differ in significant ways from those that apply to gTLDs). Attached is a document summarizing the practices in .au, .be, .ca, .de, .eu, .fr and .uk, based on information published by the respective central registries on their websites. We hope this is of some assistance in the WG¹s continuing discussions on disclosure requests. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 at 09:59 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation >The agency relationship effectively binds the parties to each other's >representations. > >K > >Kiran Malancharuvil >Internet Policy Counselor >MarkMonitor >415-419-9138 (m) > >Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >On Apr 3, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Kathy Kleiman ><kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: > >"I have the authority to make the representations and claims in this >request" >is useful, but how does a consultant bind Procter & Gamble to the >limitations on the use of the revealed data? > >Best, >Kathy >: >Dear all: > >Following up on our productive discussion earlier this week, we¹d like to >offer a suggestion to modify the ³attestation² 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: ³Where 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.² > >We could even spell out the statement for the signatory to make in >conjunction with each request : ³I 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.² > >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 requestor¹s 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. > > ><mime-attachment.jpg><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 > >_______________________________________________ >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

1 0

a possible solution?
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Maybe this is the solution? https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-to-open-its-own-pirate-domain-name-regi… -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

13 22

Safe Harbour Provisions and Online Piracy
by Carlton Samuels April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

It's getting to be a crapshoot these days! One Mr. Weatherley, strategic adviser to the UK Govt on piracy and things IP, wants to 'clarify' the exemptions afforded ISSPs in Safe Harbour Agreements.....and justify the onerous ones placed on search engines on the EU side. He's now proposing ISSPs - his term for ISPs and 'other intermediary service providers' not identified but I give you one guess to the prize - 'do more' to patrol and prevent IP infringement online, all in service of - count your fingers and grab your pockets - 'moral responsibility'. In lieu of 'action' on the part of ISSPs, Mr. here wants to do away with existing protections from suit for these ISSPs. He's also bothered that 'net neutrality' might be a vehicle for ISSPs etc. to - in his view - shirk their responsibilities to rights holders. See the report attached. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0