SG-C Input Template Redux
Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday. As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine. /But is that be our goal? /Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask? So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation. In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
Dear WG members, We thought it might be helpful to circulate the following background information for the benefit of those WG members who may not have been following the deliberations of the GNSO Council leading up to the approval of this PDP, WG and Charter. The staff paper summarizing the issues remaining for a PDP after the conclusion of negotiations between the Registrars SG and ICANN on the new 2013 RAA was submitted to the GNSO Council for review and comments on 17 September 2013. A draft charter for a WG to carry out the proposed PDP was then circulated on 10 October 2013 containing questions which were derived from the staff paper for input and feedback from GNSO Councilors, SGs and Constituencies. Based on comments from various Council members, the Charter questions were revised and updated, following which the GNSO Council adopted the final Charter (including the revised Charter questions) at its meeting on 31 October 2013. As such, we thought that soliciting SG, Constituency, SO and AC feedback on the Charter questions as approved sooner rather than later in the WG process would be of assistance to the WG. 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 * One World. One Internet. * From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:30 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux
Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday.
As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine.
But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask?
So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation.
In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
I agree that we should send the clean versions of the letters for the reasons that Mary identified in her email below and elsewhere. Also, in response to an earlier email inquiry (attached): I agree that we should request that ICANN staff ask those registrars subject to the 2013 RAA to provide links to the published information. Won't be able to attend the call tomorrow, regrets. Thanks. Todd. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 9:39 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Dear WG members, We thought it might be helpful to circulate the following background information for the benefit of those WG members who may not have been following the deliberations of the GNSO Council leading up to the approval of this PDP, WG and Charter. The staff paper summarizing the issues remaining for a PDP after the conclusion of negotiations between the Registrars SG and ICANN on the new 2013 RAA was submitted to the GNSO Council for review and comments on 17 September 2013. A draft charter for a WG to carry out the proposed PDP was then circulated on 10 October 2013 containing questions which were derived from the staff paper for input and feedback from GNSO Councilors, SGs and Constituencies. Based on comments from various Council members, the Charter questions were revised and updated, following which the GNSO Council adopted the final Charter (including the revised Charter questions) at its meeting on 31 October 2013. As such, we thought that soliciting SG, Constituency, SO and AC feedback on the Charter questions as approved sooner rather than later in the WG process would be of assistance to the WG. 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> * One World. One Internet. * From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:30 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday. As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine. But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask? So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation. In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
Kathy, Thanks for all of the work in this document. I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of “alleged” is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don’t think it’s necessary here. I’m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere. More fundamentally, we wouldn’t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it. Best, Don From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday. As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine. But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask? So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation. In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
Hi Don, The use of 'alleged' is common, not to say required in Ireland and, I believe the UK. I expect it's used in most or all common law jurisdictions to communicate the fact that the issuance of a procedure is not itself an indictment, and that even-handedness is an essential given that the 'alleged x, y or z' may well in fact be innocent and the role of the process in hand is precisely to determine whether or not this is the case. In this context, I think it's critical that our discussions are fully cognizant of the fact that accessing whois as a corrective for misdeeds is a process designed in fact for *alleged* misdeeds. It is all too easy to slip into a law enforcement frame of mind where the 'alleged perpetrator' is simply thought of as a perpetrator, and not afforded the presumption of innocence, even in simple procedural or administrative matters such as personal data access. While designing a procedure like this one, we need to be extremely careful not to slip into lazy assumptions of guilt, just because of the predominance of voices that naturally assume it. Maria On 14 January 2014 14:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> wrote:
Kathy,
Thanks for all of the work in this document.
I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of “alleged” is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don’t think it’s necessary here. I’m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere.
More fundamentally, we wouldn’t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it.
Best,
Don
From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux
Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday.
As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine.
*But is that be our goal? *Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask?
So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation.
In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Don, The same goes for civil law based countries. Something can only be referred to as illegal if a court has ruled it is so. Until then you need to refer to it as “prétendument illégal“ which means alleged/assertedly. And it goes even further because in those jurisdictions, law enforcement have to search for both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence when investigating. In any case if something is illegal and not allegedly illegal, a court order will need to be produced and action will be taken accordingly. My 0,2 euro-cents. Luc On Jan 14, 2014, at 15:33, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Don, The use of 'alleged' is common, not to say required in Ireland and, I believe the UK. I expect it's used in most or all common law jurisdictions to communicate the fact that the issuance of a procedure is not itself an indictment, and that even-handedness is an essential given that the 'alleged x, y or z' may well in fact be innocent and the role of the process in hand is precisely to determine whether or not this is the case. In this context, I think it's critical that our discussions are fully cognizant of the fact that accessing whois as a corrective for misdeeds is a process designed in fact for *alleged* misdeeds. It is all too easy to slip into a law enforcement frame of mind where the 'alleged perpetrator' is simply thought of as a perpetrator, and not afforded the presumption of innocence, even in simple procedural or administrative matters such as personal data access. While designing a procedure like this one, we need to be extremely careful not to slip into lazy assumptions of guilt, just because of the predominance of voices that naturally assume it. Maria On 14 January 2014 14:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> wrote: Kathy, Thanks for all of the work in this document. I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of “alleged” is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don’t think it’s necessary here. I’m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere. More fundamentally, we wouldn’t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it. Best, Don From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday. As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine. But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask? So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation. In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy _______________________________________________ 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. --------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the follow-up. I remember when ³alleged² came into use here but never had thought to see how wide spread it is before now. Luc, inculpatory and exculpatory applies in the US also. At least in theory, although I would guess that¹s true elsewhere too. On 1/14/14, 9:55 AM, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Don,
The same goes for civil law based countries. Something can only be referred to as illegal if a court has ruled it is so. Until then you need to refer to it as ³prétendument illégal³ which means alleged/assertedly.
And it goes even further because in those jurisdictions, law enforcement have to search for both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence when investigating.
In any case if something is illegal and not allegedly illegal, a court order will need to be produced and action will be taken accordingly.
My 0,2 euro-cents.
Luc
On Jan 14, 2014, at 15:33, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Don,
The use of 'alleged' is common, not to say required in Ireland and, I believe the UK. I expect it's used in most or all common law jurisdictions to communicate the fact that the issuance of a procedure is not itself an indictment, and that even-handedness is an essential given that the 'alleged x, y or z' may well in fact be innocent and the role of the process in hand is precisely to determine whether or not this is the case.
In this context, I think it's critical that our discussions are fully cognizant of the fact that accessing whois as a corrective for misdeeds is a process designed in fact for *alleged* misdeeds. It is all too easy to slip into a law enforcement frame of mind where the 'alleged perpetrator' is simply thought of as a perpetrator, and not afforded the presumption of innocence, even in simple procedural or administrative matters such as personal data access.
While designing a procedure like this one, we need to be extremely careful not to slip into lazy assumptions of guilt, just because of the predominance of voices that naturally assume it.
Maria
On 14 January 2014 14:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> wrote: Kathy,
Thanks for all of the work in this document.
I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of ³alleged² is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don¹t think it¹s necessary here. I¹m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere.
More fundamentally, we wouldn¹t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it.
Best,
Don
From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux
Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday.
As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine.
But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask?
So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation.
In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
_______________________________________________ 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.
--------------------------------------------------------
All, regrets that I cannot attend this morning's call. I am stuck on a flight. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 http://www.winston.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc SEUFER Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:57 AM To: Maria Farrell Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi Don, The same goes for civil law based countries. Something can only be referred to as illegal if a court has ruled it is so. Until then you need to refer to it as "prétendument illégal" which means alleged/assertedly. And it goes even further because in those jurisdictions, law enforcement have to search for both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence when investigating. In any case if something is illegal and not allegedly illegal, a court order will need to be produced and action will be taken accordingly. My 0,2 euro-cents. Luc On Jan 14, 2014, at 15:33, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Don, The use of 'alleged' is common, not to say required in Ireland and, I believe the UK. I expect it's used in most or all common law jurisdictions to communicate the fact that the issuance of a procedure is not itself an indictment, and that even-handedness is an essential given that the 'alleged x, y or z' may well in fact be innocent and the role of the process in hand is precisely to determine whether or not this is the case. In this context, I think it's critical that our discussions are fully cognizant of the fact that accessing whois as a corrective for misdeeds is a process designed in fact for *alleged* misdeeds. It is all too easy to slip into a law enforcement frame of mind where the 'alleged perpetrator' is simply thought of as a perpetrator, and not afforded the presumption of innocence, even in simple procedural or administrative matters such as personal data access. While designing a procedure like this one, we need to be extremely careful not to slip into lazy assumptions of guilt, just because of the predominance of voices that naturally assume it. Maria On 14 January 2014 14:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> wrote: Kathy, Thanks for all of the work in this document. I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of "alleged" is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don't think it's necessary here. I'm curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere. More fundamentally, we wouldn't be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it. Best, Don From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday. As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine. But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask? So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation. In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy _______________________________________________ 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. -------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
As a citizen of a common law jurisdiction, +1. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Don,
The use of 'alleged' is common, not to say required in Ireland and, I believe the UK. I expect it's used in most or all common law jurisdictions to communicate the fact that the issuance of a procedure is not itself an indictment, and that even-handedness is an essential given that the 'alleged x, y or z' may well in fact be innocent and the role of the process in hand is precisely to determine whether or not this is the case.
In this context, I think it's critical that our discussions are fully cognizant of the fact that accessing whois as a corrective for misdeeds is a process designed in fact for *alleged* misdeeds. It is all too easy to slip into a law enforcement frame of mind where the 'alleged perpetrator' is simply thought of as a perpetrator, and not afforded the presumption of innocence, even in simple procedural or administrative matters such as personal data access.
While designing a procedure like this one, we need to be extremely careful not to slip into lazy assumptions of guilt, just because of the predominance of voices that naturally assume it.
Maria
On 14 January 2014 14:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> wrote:
Kathy,
Thanks for all of the work in this document.
I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of “alleged” is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don’t think it’s necessary here. I’m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere.
More fundamentally, we wouldn’t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it.
Best,
Don
From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux
Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday.
As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine.
*But is that be our goal? *Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask?
So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation.
In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Maria, Thanks for the additional background. As an aside, the US also is a common law jurisdiction except in areas where legal systems don’t trace back to the British Empire. However, data registration can be accessed where no question exists that something wrong happened. “Alleged” in those cases only comes into play when a registrant winds up accused. That’s minor but it goes to my point that, at least in the US, the use of the term began as one thing and then morphed into something else that doesn’t comport with the original purpose and as a result often does not make sense. I’m not necessarily saying that’s the case here. I’m thinking more of “the alleged murderer was sentenced to life in prison” situation. Best, Don From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> Cc: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi Don, The use of 'alleged' is common, not to say required in Ireland and, I believe the UK. I expect it's used in most or all common law jurisdictions to communicate the fact that the issuance of a procedure is not itself an indictment, and that even-handedness is an essential given that the 'alleged x, y or z' may well in fact be innocent and the role of the process in hand is precisely to determine whether or not this is the case. In this context, I think it's critical that our discussions are fully cognizant of the fact that accessing whois as a corrective for misdeeds is a process designed in fact for *alleged* misdeeds. It is all too easy to slip into a law enforcement frame of mind where the 'alleged perpetrator' is simply thought of as a perpetrator, and not afforded the presumption of innocence, even in simple procedural or administrative matters such as personal data access. While designing a procedure like this one, we need to be extremely careful not to slip into lazy assumptions of guilt, just because of the predominance of voices that naturally assume it. Maria On 14 January 2014 14:18, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> wrote: Kathy, Thanks for all of the work in this document. I will address a couple of points but leave the substance for the WG consideration. Discussing a minor item first, the use of “alleged” is the result of publicity concerns in the US that arose in, I believe, the 1960s and definitely not before. The usage arose with respect to named defendants. I don’t think it’s necessary here. I’m curious from others if the practice of using alleged or something similar before conviction or acquittal is common elsewhere. More fundamentally, we wouldn’t be going through this exercise if the language were sacred. We have made changes. The question is how long we keep making them before sending the letters. Distributing them does not lock us into anything. Rather, they are tools for gathering community input to inform our substantive work and how we go about it. Best, Don From: Kathryn Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] SG-C Input Template Redux Hi All, I hope you are having a good weekend. NCSG members wanted to follow-up on the invitation at the end of last Tuesday's meeting to share revisions to the SG/Constituency and SO/AC questions for consideration this Tuesday. As requested by staff and our chair, we went back and read closely the background materials. Most questions originate in a report from staff of open issues after the close of the RAA negotiation. They compile questions of those still unhappy with the proxy/privacy system. There was no attempt by the writers of these questions to fair or neutral or balanced or even use consistent terminology-- that was not their goal, and that's fine. But is that be our goal? Shouldn't we more fair, neutral, balanced and use consistent terminology? In brief: - Malicious or illegal activity has to be judged so, right? If not, it's "alleged" malicious or illegal activity, right? - There might be some people who are happy with the current proxy/privacy system that allows companies, organizations and individuals to have p/p privacy protection for legal purposes. Shouldn't we at least ask? So here is a set of questions NCSG members of the WG have put together. We tried to include discussions of Luc, Volker and John earlier, but note jurisdictional issues are thorny, and we look to your guidance and input again on these. We also hope staff can put together a compilation. In my world, there are only a few sacred texts -- so perhaps there is room for a bit more editing here :-). All the best, Kathy _______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Don Blumenthal -
Kathy Kleiman -
Luc SEUFER -
Maria Farrell -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Williams, Todd