Dear all, Following from Steve¹s email, here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on Tuesday 3 March; please also note the attached revised Work Plan for this WG, which takes into account recent discussions and updates our timeline for publication of our Initial Report and delivery of a Final Report to the GNSO Council: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Finalize discussion on draft document on discussion standards 3. Discuss remaining questions concerning Category F (Reveal) - see below 4. Discuss proposed WG face-to-face facilitated meeting at ICANN53 5. Next steps/next meeting To assist with the WG¹s discussion of agenda item #3, here are the outstanding questions for Category F, as phrased in the draft Initial Report under discussion (they can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary): * Should there be uniform minimum standards for accredited P/P providers to apply in determining when to Disclose or Publish, or in verifying a requestor¹s identity? * Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express requests from LEA in the provider¹s jurisdiction not to notify a customer? Should there be mandatory Publication for certain types of activity e.g. malware/viruses or violation of terms of service relating to illegal activity? What (if any) should the remedies be for unwarranted Publication? * Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express requests for Disclosure for the purpose of sending cease and desist letters or notices of formal legal proceedings against the customer? Should customer notification in such cases be mandatory? Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 09:54 To: "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated document re disclosure standards
PPSAI WG members,
Attached please find an updated version of the document Graeme and I circulated prior to last week¹s meeting. This updated version includes three or four wording tweaks, intended to reflect the discussion on last week¹s call. Looking forward to further discussion on tomorrow¹s call.
Steve Metalitz
From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com> Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57 To: "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F -- updated status report and text for discussion
PPSAI WG members,
This follows up on our note of Feb. 3 providing a status report on subgroup discussions among some IP interests and p/p service providers regarding p/p disclosure standards. To reiterate, the group¹s work is not meant to obviate or displace the work of the larger PPSAI WG on this issue rather, it is meant to constructively contribute to the discussion by producing one proposal on this issue for the larger group¹s consideration.
In light of further consideration and of the need to move forward the WG discussion on Category F, we present the attached document that we hope will help provide a framework for discussion of the disclosure issue in the WG. We emphasize that this is not a proposal from IPC, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, or any subset of either, and that we fully anticipate the text to be modified and improved through further discussion at the WG level. (We also acknowledge that the WG may find the proposal wholly unsatisfactory but hope that it will at least help advance debate.)
The attached is put forward as a starting point, to use intellectual property infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum disclosure standards, in a framework that addresses (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.
We look forward to the discussion of this document among WG members.
Graeme Bunton Steve Metalitz
From: Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:57 PM To: PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org) Subject: Category F -- status report
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 group¹s 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 group¹s consideration. This is an update on this sub-group¹s 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 ³Category F² 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 WG¹s efforts to do so.
Graeme Bunton Steve Metalitz