All, The Agenda for our meeting tomorrow appears to set a goal of finishing our discussion on Category F-- "Conclude discussion of framework for Category F (see attached document)." While Staff has done a great job catching many changes we proposed (tx you!), there are more that have been proposed and not objected to. There are even more changes and edits that we have not gotten to as we have not yet moved to all topics, including Annexes, etc. Therefore, with respect and concern for the desire to move forward, I share a version with the changes we have proposed, and a few that we need to propose: - Section I.B that Providers be allowed to share information about Requestors who abuse their system (absent sanctions for abuse, which we have not yet defined, this is an alternative protection) -- and earlier proposed. - Section II.A,B,C that Requestors provide the name, address, telephone number of the trademark owner as well as his/her/its representative. The representative (such as an attorney) may or may not be in the same jurisdiction as the trademark or copyright owner, and we don't want to track down first the counsel and later the trademark owner. It should all be in one place... also, if the signatory is not the Trademark Owner, who are they? As their statement under Penalty of Perjury is set out as a protection for the Customer, who they are and under what color of authority they represent the IP owner is a key piece of information in this process. - Section III.A that 15 calendar days for a Customer response. We are told by groups engaged actively in the reveal process in other areas that 15 is really the minimum for receiving, researching, contacting experts, and responding. They actually recommend 30 days... - Section III.C.3 that Provider may act on this own information and research in the case Customer does not or is unable to respond (e.g., August action and Battered Women's Shelter, Neighborhood Safety Program, well-known magazine). - Section III.C.5 that Provider may adopt the standard of obvious clear-cut infringement absent clear or reasonable defense. - Section III.D adds "lack of" to the full list of pending proceedings which, if they are taking place, the Provider may choose not to act until completed. - Section III.G is the proposed new section: Nothing in this proposal shall prohibit a Provider from determining the Customer’s use of the Service may violate its terms of service and reveal the underlying information despite the criteria of this proposal not being met. - ANNEX: Many questions regarding the Annex, including whether an appeals process has been agreed to? If so, it should be balanced, with access to both Requestors and Customers, and limited so that Providers do not have to face an appeal of each and every decision - but only exceptions or controversies passing a high threshold. This draft tries to offer balancing language, but this is an area which we have not discussed I would ask the Chairs to spend at least one session on it before we finalize language and send it out for public comment. Certainly the standard for action in bad faith from the requestor should be "knowingly false representations to the Provider," not "knowingly false representations to the Provider with intent to deceive." Providing "intent to deceive" is an almost impossible standard requiring Providers and Customers to know what was in the head and heart of the Requestor. A knowingly false statement to the Provider on the few key pieces of information a Requestor is asked to provide should be sufficient -- especially in a matter as significant as a Reveal -- and sufficiently hard for a Provider or Customer to prove... Everything in "Track Changes." Doc attached. Best, Kathy