Just a brief note that could facilitate our discussion tomorrow with regard to the "Annex" to the draft disclosure framework. (Thanks Mary for recirculating this text.) As the title spells out, the document sets forth "Some options for resolving disputes arising from alleged false statements leading to improper disclosures." The Annex is not intended to address any appeal mechanism regarding a disclosure request, but only the consequences of a request wrongfully granted because based on false pretenses. In this document, "some" options basically boils down to two options. Under the first option, a requestor would agree to submit such disputes to an arbitrator. (The other party to the dispute, the privacy/proxy service provider, would presumably agree to this method as well, as part of its accreditation process.) The document provides some more detail about the arbitration process, though certainly much more work would need to be done to implement it. Under the second option, the requestor would agree, for purposes of such wrongful disclosure disputes, to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in the territory where the service provider is located. Our discussions over the past few weeks may have made the last paragraph of the Annex document less relevant. It is based on the assumption that, under either option, not all requestors would necessarily be required to agree. As specified in section I.b.iv of the overall document, a service provider could, if it chose, institute a "trusted requestor" program to facilitate processing of requests from reliable sources. The last paragraph of the Annex says that a service provider could, if it chose, make such an agreement a condition of entry into a "trusted requestor" program, if it had one. This last paragraph may be irrelevant if the group decides that some dispute resolution process should be available whenever the service provider believes it has wrongfully disclosed based on false pretenses. But ultimately the group still needs to decide whether there will be such a mandatory dispute resolution process, and if so, which process it will be (arbitration, or litigation in the service provider's home court). Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:05 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 7 April 2014 Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG call on 7 April 2014 is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Continue deliberations on Category F, specifically: (a) attestation/signatory for Requests; (b) Section III.C(5); (c) non-use of high-volume automated processes; and (d) the Annex. 3. Next steps/next meeting Please also find attached an updated version of the draft disclosure framework for agenda item #2. This version accepts all the changes up to last week (excluding prior suggested changes to the type of information required on a Requestor), and adds the recent language suggested by Val on attestation, Todd and Volker on III.C(5) (in square brackets as two alternate versions), and a final paragraph/sentence on the automation issue, based on language previously suggested by Todd and a suggestion by James to look at the specific language in the 2013 RAA applicable to this type of activity. The draft Annex 1 is also attached - it preserves the original text that was presented to the WG several weeks ago, since the WG chairs thought it would be easier to review that way in order to ensure that everyone is clear about the options being offered. 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>