Steve and Graeme, Tx you for this update. It is much appreciated as are your efforts and all involved in this project. I would like to urge that ideas now be shared with all of us. Especially if a sticking point is " and that would include reasonable safeguards and procedures to protect the legitimate interests of customers of accredited proxy/privacy service providers" as indicated below, those of us who are customers and working with Registrant groups would like to be part of the discussion at this point. Just my thought - happy to hear others. Safe travels to Singapore! Best, Kathy :
Dear WG colleagues,
As you know, several PPSAI Working Group members, including representatives of the IPC and privacy and proxy service providers, have endeavored to develop a collaborative proposal on the minimum standards for disclosure (Category F). The group’s work is not meant to obviate or displace the work of the larger group on this issue – rather, it is meant to constructively contribute to the discussion by producing one proposal on this issue for the larger group’s consideration. This is an update on this sub-group’s progress.
But first, a little background: At the face-to-face meeting of the PPSAI Working Group in Los Angeles on October 10, 2014, one important topic was minimum standards for disclosure of contact information of customers of privacy/proxy services who may or may not be using their private domain name registrations to carry out infringing or other abusive activities.
Prior to the face-to-face meeting, IPC participants in the Working Group circulated a proposal on this topic. A responsive redline was circulated to the WG by Volker Greimann.
Following extensive discussion of these proposals and of the topic in general at the face-to-face meeting, a sub-group of WG participants have continued this discussion. The sub-group includes participants from the IPC and privacy/proxy service providers. Meeting by teleconference and working over e-mail, the sub-group has sought to develop a text that could be jointly presented to the PPSAI Working Group as a framework for further discussion on the issue of standards for disclosure.
Some progress has been made, and the sub-group is continuing its efforts with the goal of producing a document for presentation to the PPSAI Working Group as soon after the Singapore ICANN meeting as feasible. If such a document is completed, it is hoped that it would be a constructive contribution to eventual WG approval of a set of recommendations on “Category F” for inclusion in the Draft Report of the WG.
Unlike the documents discussed by the full WG last October, the framework under discussion does not purport to establish a single general policy for when disclosure of contact information in cases of alleged abusive activities would be available. Instead, it seeks to focus more narrowly on intellectual property infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum disclosure standards. The framework would describe (1) a service provider process for intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would have to meet in order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles governing service provider action in response to a conforming request. While considerable progress has been made in the first two areas, a number of critical issues remain to be resolved in the third area, and discussion has not been concluded on any of the areas.
The expressed common goal of the discussion group participants is a framework that would give requestors a higher degree of certainty and predictability as to if, when and how they could obtain what level of disclosure; that would preserve for service providers a sufficient degree of flexibility and discretion in acting upon requests for disclosure; and that would include reasonable safeguards and procedures to protect the legitimate interests of customers of accredited proxy/privacy service providers. Of course, balancing these interests is the difficult task before our working group. As stated, participants in the discussion group hope to be able to make a constructive contribution to the WG’s efforts to do so.
Graeme Bunton
Steve Metalitz
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:32 AM *To:* PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org) *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated draft Initial Report - for SINGAPORE and subsequent discussion
Dear WG members,
Please find attached the latest revisions to the draft Initial Report, reflecting the discussions from the WG call on 28 January – as such, the changes since the last version circulated on 21 January are to Recommendations #15 and #19 in Section 1.3.1, Section 1.3.2 and Section 1.3.3 (all in the Executive Summary). In addition, we have prepared a Glossary (attached) that can be included in the report when it is published for public comment, which includes the new definitions agreed on by the WG for Disclosure and Publication as well as existing definitions from previous GNSO work that were used in scoping this PDP and chartering the WG.
Once the draft Initial Report is finalized by this WG following the Singapore meeting, we will also explore other formatting and visual options to better assist the reader with viewing and reviewing the various WG recommendations.
Finally, as a reminder, the WG call originally scheduled for today (Tuesday 3 February) is canceled; this WG will therefore meet again during the ICANN meeting, on *Wednesday 11 February at 09:30 Singapore time*, in the Hullet Room at the conference venue. Remote participation details will be posted to the main ICANN meeting schedule: http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ppsai.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg