Can someone please explain to me why the language in III.(c)(3) is suddenly objectionable when, as noted below by Todd, it's a mirror image of the language around what the Requestor must allege? Thanks, Kiran From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:29 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E Not sure why this message didn't hit the list. Apologies if you rec'd two copies. Thanks- J. From: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:21 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E While I have no specific concerns with the changes for III.(c)(2), the changes for III.(c)(3) are concerning and I would either like to (a) hold publication of our Initial Report so we can discuss Tuesday, or (b) revert to the previous language. Thanks- J. From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:31 To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E All, I think there are a lot of major language shifts taking place a) after our calls and b) in hopes of bringing final language into the Report that is being finalized today. Unfortunately, I think Val's language for III.C.2 and especially III.C.3 has enormous consequences and cast a major change to language that has remained essentially unchanged in our many weeks of discussion. The original language was essentially brought to the WG, accepted by the WG and ready to be put out for comment by the WG -- with brackets (as in so many other parts of the report) -- but all the time with the language of the committee that drafted it. Now we are being asked to review such changes a) under a fast deadline and b) with no in-person comment. I have to object - and call for the original language to stay. If we want to meet next week to talk about these new proposed changes, let's do that. But we have no precedent of accepting major changes without exploring them in person and on the calls -- as we have explored every other significant change. Best, Kathy : Thanks Kathy. On III(C)(2) and (3): I don't think we ever had agreement on the language. "Adequate" was still bracketed precisely b/c we hadn't agreed on that standard (I think the initial language was "compelling", and I think it had changed a couple times in between). In the spirit of trying to address some of our loose ends and leave as little language bracketed as possible, I think Val's proposal for III(C)(2) and (3) does a good job of finding a "third way" between the "compelling" camp and the "adequate" camp. Rather than pick b/w those two standards, it just says: let's use the mirror of what the Requestor has to allege under II(A)(6)(a), II(B)(7)(A), and II(C)(6)(A). As a way of bridging the current gap that we've got, that seems reasonable to me: if the language is good for the Requestor, why wouldn't it be good going the other way? Or, to put it another way: why would that language "seem a little ambiguous and hard to prove" going one way but not the other? I agree with you that we don't want a lot of additional work and discussion at this point. I guess where I disagree with you is on which of the two options that is on the table - 1) fighting it out b/w "compelling" and "adequate" or 2) incorporating language that we've agreed to elsewhere - is more likely to lead to additional work and discussion. TW. 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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:02 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E Hi Val, Thank you for new language as we work to close the report for publication. May I ask a few questions? In III.B.2 - the change from [existing] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its reasons for refusing to disclose to [new/proposed] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose -- seems to raise the bar on the response of the Provider to the Requestor -- and there may be many Requests! So let me as, what are you thinking of in terms of the "specific reasons" that a Provider might have to give? How extensive or detailed would you like their answers to be? Re: III.C.2 and 3 I think the existing language is quite good -- with apologies, because I know the genuine good will in which the changes are offered, bringing in a Customer's "belief" and the Providers "belief" seems a little ambiguous and hard to prove. I look forward to looking at III.B.2 with you... but re: III.B.3, I think we had pretty good agreement on the existing language and these new proposals may result is a lot of additional work and discussion. Best, Kathy 1. On 4/14/2015 4:12 PM, Sherman, Valeriya wrote: PPSAI Team: Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report, we'd like to propose the following, hopefully non-contentious suggestions to III.B, C, and E. We look forward to your thoughts. B. ... (1) ... (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose. (3) ... 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) ... (2) the Customer has objectsed to the disclosure and has providesd [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question for believing (i) that it is not infringing the Requestor's claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (Note: This language tracks the Requestor's standards warranting disclosure, and is the opposite side of the same coin.) (3) the Provider has found provides [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure for believing (i) that the Customer is not infringing the Requestor's claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that the Customer's use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (4) ... (5) ... ... E. If refusal to disclose is based on objection to disclosure by the Customer, Requestor be informed of the reasons for objection. (Could be consolidated with III B (2)). 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. [cid:image001.jpg@01D07848.79237650]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ 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
