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

 

 

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

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):

-----------------------------------------------