I believe c 2 and 3 are already on today's agenda for discussion. Steve Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman [kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 05:59 AM Pacific Standard Time To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015 Dear All, Some new language was introduced after the meeting last week. Despite objections from me, James Gannon and James Bladel, and a promise from Steve that it would be discussed this week for consideration, it has been included -- and longstanding language that we have agreed to for weeks (months?) has become bracketed and "optional." I don't think that is the right way to handle this process so late in the day. I strongly request that we return to the original language (included below from Mary's 4/13 circulated just before the last meeting) and if people want to change III.C.2 and 3 (completely rewrite, really), they should argue why. From Mary's Reveal text circulated 4/13 just before our last meeting (with note that my objection is solely to the sudden complete change of III.C.2 and 3 (and not to the evolving dialogue and wording of III.C.5): [III] 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) the Service Provider has already published Customer contact details in Whois as the result of termination of privacy and proxy service; (2) the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question; (3) the Provider has found [adequate] reasons against disclosure, (4) the Customer has surrendered its domain name registration in lieu of disclosure, if the Service Provider offers its Customers this option. (5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright request is a pretext for obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights [facts and circumstances] [information, facts and/or circumstances] showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details [solely] [mainly] for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s [human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)] [privacy rights]. Best, Kathy : Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as follows; please also note the additional information/suggestions that follow. 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework intended for public comment – Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached) 3. Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report – see below 4. Next steps/next meeting – including circulation of final draft Initial Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and publication date for public comment The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes: (1) the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of authorization (as noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April document); and (2) for clarity, the retention of “square brackets” only with reference to language that still reflects two or more options (since the entire document will be open for public comment in any case). For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions from the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29 January 2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion at the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the suggested answers below for discussion/agreement/other comments. Graeme and Steve’s suggestions are highlighted in blue, with references to the context for these remaining questions (as page numbers from the draft Report) following in bold and underlined. The actual phrasing of each question can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary of the draft Report as well. Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P Providers: * The standard for maintaining a P/P provider’s designated point of contact: - the person or team must be “capable and authorized” (per the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the IRTP<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en>) (see pages 50-51 of the draft Initial Report) * The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an abuse report is made to the designated point of contact – while the requirement under Section 3.18.1 of the 2013 RAA<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> (“taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond”) had been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has been superseded by the WG’s specific recommendations on Relay and Disclosure (pages 51-52) * To ensure provider contactability – P/P providers should be required to publish contact information on their website, modelled after Section 2.3 of the interim Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#priv...> in the 2013 RAA (pages 51-52) On Escalation of Relay Requests: * On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure of electronic communications – retain current language in draft Initial Report (including bracketed options) for public comment. The current draft language reads as follows: "While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider’s obligation to act in the event it becomes aware of a persistent delivery failure, the WG has yet to agree on obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by a requestor. The following is the current language under consideration by the WG, with the options included in square brackets: “As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned requirements concerning a persistent delivery failure of an electronic communication have been met, the provider [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the most appropriate means of forwarding such a request [and to charge a reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee is to be borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider shall have the right to impose reasonable limits on the number of such requests made by the same requestor.”” (pages 53-54) Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of the WG’s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and publish in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a customer’s contact details will be Published due to the customer’s breach of one or more of the Terms of Service. While this is not a Charter-based question, WG members are encouraged – when they come to review the final draft Initial Report – to consider this question and provide additional feedback if necessary. 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg>