Hi Kathy, I am not sure I am found of the direction we are now taking. I trust providers do need to be able to verify that they are not acting carelessly on the request of third parties’ mere assertion. But I also don’t think providers should have any obligation to build a database of “known” or “approved” so-called requestors. AFAIC Val’s latest proposal was acceptable. All the best, Luc On 13 Apr 2015, at 13:31, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Hi Val and All, Tx you for the the emails of this weekend - and a better insight into processes today. Building upon the discussion of Friday and the weekend, it seems a good idea to incorporate and reflect the current practice of many Providers to validate new/unknown requestors, so I would like to recommend adding a last change to the language to ensure this current practice is included (in italics and green below). : d) Where the signatory is not the rights holder, an officer of the rights holder (if a corporate entity) or an attorney of the rights holder, and the Provider has a reasonable basis to believe that the Requestor is unauthorized to act on behalf of the rights holder or seeks to verify a new or unknown requestor, the Provider may request, and the Requestor shall provide, sufficient proof of agency. Best, Kathy Val wrote: : Thank you, Kathy for this language. It is a positive step in the right direction. We would like to propose a slight variation to it: d) Where the signatory is not the rights holder, an officer of the rights holder (if a corporate entity) or an attorney of the rights holder, and the Provider has a reasonable basis to believe that the Requestor is unauthorized to act on behalf of the rights holder, the Provider may request, and the Requestor shall provide, sufficient proof of agency. Happy to hear others’ thoughts on this. 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@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. <Mail Attachment.jpeg><http://www.sgrlaw.com/> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP 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 Graeme Bunton Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:20 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation - a few new words Thanks Kathy, Originally, I had concerns about this, similar to what Michele was expressing on the call. In talking with our compliance team, it sounds like they have, for a new or unknown requester that's a third party, attempted to verify the relationship between them and the rights holder. The below language seems reasonable to me, and I wouldn't think it would generate anything that doesn't already exist. Having it available may even make requests more efficient. Graeme On 2015-04-10 3:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi Todd and All, It sounds like we all agree that the requester must have the rights holders' authorization to make the submit the reveal request, make the infringement allegation and bind the rights holder to the limitations on the revealed data. For rights holders, that agency will be reflected in a document -- an agency agreement (or equivalent). That's all we're asking for -- the ability to see it if there are questions. We circulated some longer language earlier, but have been reviewing it. Building on Val's language, it may now boil down to a few additional words. They are below (in italics) and attached in the Reveal Policy (using the text by Mary for our meeting last Tues): ----------------------------------------------- ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------