I am sorry for sowing confusion. Not sure what to call this new thread, but I guess it is not a revised approach to reviewing comments. I was responding to your "how to develop an framework for exceptions to 3.3.1.6 that does not create a safe haven for human traffickers, cyber-bullies, and other nefarious types that would harm non-commercial users of the Internet. It is not within our remit to undo 3.3.1.6, no matter how many form comments are posted asking that we do so. Our remit is finding what circumstances warrant the exception through allowing WHOIS modification and which do not, the means to communicate to someone who is legitimately using such WHOIS modification services, and the terms upon which such allowable WHOIS modification will be terminated if it is being used to abuse others." I was honestly just trying to walk through a case study of the situation you describe. SP On 2015-07-20 14:32, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
Your post confused me. We were discussing Volker’s newly proposed “litigation only” approach not accreditation along the lines that the Team has been discussing for months. Which paradigm were you meaning to invoke?
Best,
Paul
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 12:18 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Lets be clear here: if we accredit proxy providers, they are obliged to act if they have credible evidence (in the form of a warrant, notice of investigation, or other perfectly normal instrument of due process presented to them. Is that not correct? So can we walk through the case studies of the human traffickers, cyberbullies, and other nefarious types who have got away with hiding behind proxy services that will remain unreachable under our new accreditation process? I am having trouble imagining these situations, case studies would be very useful to assist our discussions. It was my understanding that ISPS are a fruitful avenue for these kinds of investigations....gives one much more data that the WHOIS. kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-07-20 8:25, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks James. The ship has already sailed on option a). See 3.3.1.6 of the RA noting the mandatory requirement of the disclosure of “The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder.” What this team is discussing is how to develop an framework for exceptions to 3.3.1.6 that does not create a safe haven for human traffickers, cyber-bullies, and other nefarious types that would harm non-commercial users of the Internet. It is not within our remit to undo 3.3.1.6, no matter how many form comments are posted asking that we do so. Our remit is finding what circumstances warrant the exception through allowing WHOIS modification and which do not, the means to communicate to someone who is legitimately using such WHOIS modification services, and the terms upon which such allowable WHOIS modification will be terminated if it is being used to abuse others.
Even if abolishing 3.3.1.6 were a possibility and the DNS wasn’t built on a series of contracts (which it is), I see no particular upside to telling parents of children being bullied online, geriatric victims of banking scams, and targets of pay-in-advance credit offers that they have to wait months while their local court order requiring disclosure makes its way through the Hague Convention service process in order to be effectuated by a far-away privacy service. Although we have heard much about protecting the rights of non-commercial users of the Internet who happen to be domain name registrants as well and who are using P/P services (and we should be concerned about them), we also need to keep in mind the other non-commercial users of the Internet who will also be affected – even if they have not contributed financially to the system by purchasing a domain name.
I for one hope we can get back on track and discuss the substantive, relevant comments and reach final consensus on the handful of outstanding issues and get a report in to the GNSO that reflects a sensible balance.
Regards,
Paul
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 5:51 AM *To:* Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Agreed Volker I would put my analysis in set A aswell.
-James
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 11:37 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Hi Steve,
these comments can be read in different ways:
a) ICANN should not implement policy that requires disclosure without a court order, or b) no disclosure should be allowed without a court order.
I tend to interpret the comments as being in the a) column.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.07.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
No, James, we should certainly consider those concerns but not necessarily change the report.
The single concern raised more often than any other, I am positive, is that proxy services should not be permitted to disclose any information on their customer without a court order. That is not a standard that your service or any other that I know of can meet. We can change our report to make that a requirement for privacy/proxy service providers. Should we?
Steve
*From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 3:35 PM *To:* Metalitz, Steven *Cc:* Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Steve:
With respect, if several thousand commenters raised issues that concern them, but are not addressed by our report, the our focus should be on changing the report, not discounting the comments.
Thank you,
J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy
On Jul 17, 2015, at 21:20, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote:
I am all in favor of people identifying topics they believe need to be addressed by the WG. However, Kathy, I have to disagree with your premise, which is that the ten thousand plus comments reflect responses to our questions or even statements of agreement or disagreement to our consensus positions or report proposals. A much smaller (though still significant) number of comments do that, and those should be our top priority for review and response. But the vast majority of comments clearly are not responses to our report. These mass comments raise a very limited number of issues, which I don’t think we will that much difficulty dealing with once we have addressed the responses to our questions and the reasoned statements of agreement or disagreement with specific proposals we have made.
Let’s get started on the more substantive comments, starting with the questions we did pose. We have subteams forming to start to tackle that, and the staff (and Graeme!) are providing some tools to try to help facilitate that. For those who don’t wish to join subteams, again, I agree it would be useful to identify (as you put it) the “major issues and concerns” that you find in the comments, with citations to those comments that you believe raise those major issues and concerns.
Steve
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:34 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Hi Don, Steve, Graeme, Mary and all WG members, I would like recommend that we take a slightly different approach. We received over ten thousand comments, many coming from those who do not ordinarily participate in the ICANN process. They wrote to us us not only in response to our specific questions, but also to share agreement (and disagreement) to our consensus positions/report proposals, and to explain why proxy/privacy registrations are important to them. There has been a huge outpouring particularly on the last issue.
While a few topics for cataloging these comments were presented on the call, with great respect, I do not think we have dealt with or cataloged all of the major issues and concerns raised by the comments yet. Before we leap forward to subteams and analysis, shouldn't we ask further, in writing, and with the whole of the WG participating -- have we gotten the topics right? Have we created sufficient topics to allow us to catalog the broad range of information, concerns and comments shared with us by so many commenters?
I would like to request that we be able to take big breath, and a slightly (only slightly!) different approach. In preparation for Tuesday's call, could we all skim the comments -- with our array of expertise, insight, knowledge of aspects of our commenter base -- to come up with topics that we think the WG should evaluate in tour review? Perhaps if we can circulate the topics online, and then discuss them on Tuesday.
Then we discuss how these topics/this substance might be overlaid on the subteam process laid out below and shared for the first time on last week's call. We will then have both substance and process! And we will know that we have considered all of the major issues arising from these important comments.
If we go forward now without this evaluation, I fear we may be missing much of what the comments have to offer.
Best and tx, Kathy
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
*Sent:*14 July 2015 23:50 *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Dear WG members,
Following from the WG call earlier today, the co-chairs and staff after some consultation would like to propose the following approach for your consideration:
_1. Use of Sub Teams for Specific Topics_:
* Sub-teams comprising a few WG volunteers each can be formed to do the initial review of public comments received on the three topics suggested by Steve on the call, i.e. (1) Section 1.3.2 of the Initial Report (on escalation of relay requests and the handling of disclosure/publication requests from third parties other than IP rights holders); (2) Section 1.3.3 (on the open question regarding online financial transactions); and (3) Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework). * To assist the WG evaluate the usefulness of sub teams, a sub team for Section 1.3.2 can be formed first and serve as a “test case” for the exercise. * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a “first pass” through a template, based on the Public Comment Review Tool, that staff will populate with all the input received on that particular issue. The sub team will report back to the full WG in a timely fashion, including suggesting a WG response and/or proposed action in relation to the comments received. * Sub teams may elect to do their work via email and online tools (e.g. Google Docs or a wiki page), with or without supplemental conference calls. Any calls will be recorded and transcribed for transparency purposes, and drafts and other documents prepared using online tools will also be made available to the full WG. (Do note, however, that depending on call scheduling and timing, staff support may not be available for all requested calls if several sub teams are used concurrently.)
*PLEASE VOLUNTEER FOR SUB TEAM 1.3.2 IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ASSISTING WITH THIS INITIAL REVIEW. *Staff will endeavor to provide the template tool for 1.3.2 to the sub team as soon as possible, hopefully by Monday.
_2. Full WG Review of Other Comments to Continue in Parallel_:
* Staff will “collapse” (per James’ suggestion on the call) all those template responses received that were simply a Yes or No answer to a question, without any further comment added – these will be reflected in the Public Comment Review Tool accordingly, as a single collective entry. The current Tool (covering Preliminary Recommendations 1 through 9) will be updated in time for the WG to begin this review on the next call.
_3. Collated Information_:
* In addition to the updated spreadsheet just circulated by Graeme, we can also send you archived mail files of the contributions received to the public comment forum, should you or your group wish to conduct searches through each comment yourselves.
We hope the above will be helpful in facilitating good progress on the work to be done in preparation for the Final Report.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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@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@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
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.