Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review): * The more that I've thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it's a poor fit for what we're trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we've discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn't really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily. 1) We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard. 2) On the other side, I'm sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it's still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is). I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) - which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we're trying to fight pretext, let's fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that: 1) I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint. 2) I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints. 3) II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that). 4) The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints. If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn't the best way to do it. * I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I'm not quite sure why it's still bracketed. We're already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document - which we've now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus - is moot. Thanks as always. Todd. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Kathy, Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call! We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did. Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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

Hi all, A follow on question: If the complainer needs to be a VP, principal, etc. will the same standard be required of any customer's representative? If not, why not? Thanks all. Looking forward to today's call. Best, Paul From: McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:59 PM To: 'Williams, Todd'; Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Thanks Todd. Thanks also to Kathy and Kiran. A few questions to discuss tomorrow: * If the Provider were to refuse disclosure based on a "clear and reasonable" defense by a customer will that customer be held to the "perjury + notary" standard that the complaining party will be held to? * If not, why not, since a response can be just as pretextual as a complaint? * Why is the proposed standard for one "slam dunk" (a claim which is indefensible) and the other "clear and reasonable" (a defense which "sounds plausible"). Should the standards be the same? If not, why not? I'm looking forward to the call tomorrow. Thanks all! Best, Paul 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 Williams, Todd Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:21 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review): * The more that I've thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it's a poor fit for what we're trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we've discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn't really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily. 1) We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard. 2) On the other side, I'm sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it's still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is). I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) - which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we're trying to fight pretext, let's fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that: 1) I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint. 2) I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints. 3) II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that). 4) The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints. If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn't the best way to do it. * I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I'm not quite sure why it's still bracketed. We're already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document - which we've now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus - is moot. Thanks as always. Todd. -----Original Message----- 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 Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Kathy, Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call! We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did. Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----Original Message----- 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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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 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.

This would be very difficult to prove, don't you think? Yes it is much more precise, but it is easier to force the requestor to prove their claim. The lengths that ex-spouses and religious groups will go to to harrass the folks they are after are not easily anticipated by Registrars' staff. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-27 17:45, Williams, Todd wrote:

All:

I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we’re dealing with – which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users’ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we’re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language:

C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to:

(5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights.

Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we’ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I’m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always.

Todd.

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Williams, Todd *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review):

·The more that I’ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it’s a poor fit for what we’re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we’ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn’t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily.

1)We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard.

2)On the other side, I’m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it’s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is).

I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) – which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we’re trying to fight pretext, let’s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that:

1)I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint.

2)I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints.

3)II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that).

4)The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints.

If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn’t the best way to do it.

·I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I’m not quite sure why it’s still bracketed. We’re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document – which we’ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus – is moot.

Thanks as always.

Todd.

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message-----

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman

Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM

To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton

Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All,

Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including

a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend,

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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I have been mulling over the wording that Todd proposed on Friday. I think it should be evaluated alongside the standard we were evaluating (a "clear and convincing") as a reason for disclosure -- and I would like to hear what the Providers think. But I think it advances our discussion... tx Todd! Kathy On 3/27/2015 5:45 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

All:

I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we’re dealing with – which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users’ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we’re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language:

C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to:

(5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights.

Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we’ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I’m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always.

Todd.

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Williams, Todd *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review):

·The more that I’ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it’s a poor fit for what we’re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we’ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn’t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily.

1)We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard.

2)On the other side, I’m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it’s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is).

I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) – which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we’re trying to fight pretext, let’s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that:

1)I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint.

2)I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints.

3)II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that).

4)The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints.

If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn’t the best way to do it.

·I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I’m not quite sure why it’s still bracketed. We’re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document – which we’ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus – is moot.

Thanks as always.

Todd.

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message-----

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman

Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM

To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton

Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All,

Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including

a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend,

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

Hi Todd, not having discussed this with anyone else, I'd feel more comforable with language along the lines of: “that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificinformation, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details mainlyfor the purpose of contravening the Customer’s privacy.” Solely is too strong, and needs to be toned down as even a partial connection to a potential violation would otherwise close this door. I removed human rights as this is mainly about privacy. Showing was also toned down to indicating. The provider is not a court, he cannot make legal determinations, but he can accept indications. Finally, information was added to facts and circumstances, as again, the provider cannot make factual decisions in every case and should be able to rely on information. VG VG Am 02.04.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Williams, Todd:

Following on our call on Tuesday, I’ve tried to incorporate the changes that others suggested to the language for III(C)(5) that I had proposed last week. New language below (changes in red). Let me know if I didn’t capture any of what we discussed:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificfacts and circumstances showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).”

Also, just to reiterate what I mentioned on the call: yes, I did intend this new language in III(C)(5) to replace the old language in III(C)(5) (on the “slam dunk” standard) and the previous draft appendix on human rights. For the reasons that I mentioned on the call and below, I think that this language more exactly and unambiguously addressesthe concerns that we’ve been discussing, without otherwise disrupting the balance that the draft proposal has attempted to strike.

Todd.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:06 PM *To:* Williams, Todd; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

I have been mulling over the wording that Todd proposed on Friday. I think it should be evaluated alongside the standard we were evaluating (a "clear and convincing") as a reason for disclosure -- and I would like to hear what the Providers think. But I think it advances our discussion... tx Todd!

Kathy

On 3/27/2015 5:45 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

All:

I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we’re dealing with – which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users’ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we’re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language:

C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to:

(5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights.

Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we’ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I’m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always.

Todd.

*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 *Williams, Todd *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review):

·The more that I’ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it’s a poor fit for what we’re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we’ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn’t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily.

1)We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard.

2)On the other side, I’m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it’s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is).

I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) – which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we’re trying to fight pretext, let’s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that:

1)I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint.

2)I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints.

3)II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that).

4)The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints.

If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn’t the best way to do it.

·I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I’m not quite sure why it’s still bracketed. We’re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document – which we’ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus – is moot.

Thanks as always.

Todd.

-----Original Message----- 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 Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message-----

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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM

To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton

Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All,

Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including

a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend,

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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

From a P/P provider¹s perspective, I agree with Volker¹s proposed language and position that this is about privacy. I think we have to consider how respect for human rights varies around the world‹some countries have little to no respect for ³human rights.² Including that language puts the P/P provider in a position of arguing with a requester who doesn¹t support basic human rights.

Thanks, Darcy Darcy Southwell Compliance Officer Endurance International Group M: +1 503-453-7305 Skype: darcy.enyeart www.endurance.com From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com> Date: Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Thank you Volker. Would be interested to hear what others have to say, but I¹m OK with the changes that you¹ve outlined below except for the change from ³human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)² to ³privacy.² Several thoughts on that one: · I specifically included the reference to ³freedom of expression² per Kathy¹s request in our call last week to make that explicit, so I¹d want to hear her thoughts before we remove it. · There¹s been a general sentiment ­ expressed most recently by Stephanie in our 3-24 call ­ that some reference to the human rights ³edge cases² that we¹ve been discussing needs to be explicit in the document. I think there are two options on the table to do so: 1) do it here; or 2) do it in the much longer ³appendix² on human rights/complex case advisory group that we discussed earlier. As I¹ve argued on the calls and below, I think that this option more exactly and unambiguously addresses the ³edge case² concerns than did the previous appendix (or the previous ³clear and convincing² language in III(C)(5), for that matter). So if by removing the reference to human rights here, we instead have to go back to square one on discussing and debating the longer appendix, I¹d be against doing so. · I think substituting ³privacy² for ³human rights² confuses the means and ends of what we¹re trying to address, and makes III(C)(5) somewhat circular. By definition, any time there is a disclosure, the beneficial user¹s privacy is lessened to some extent. The language in III(C)(5) is not meant to preclude that as an end in itself ­ if it did, it would make the rest of the document moot. Rather, III(C)(5) precludes Requesters from submitting pretextual complaints in order to then misuse the disclosure process that we¹ve developed as an improper means to a totally different end: namely, the end of somehow impinging on the Customer¹s human rights. I think that we need to keep that distinction clear for III(C)(5) to work. My initial thoughts; happy to hear what others have to say. Todd. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:06 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Todd, not having discussed this with anyone else, I'd feel more comforable with language along the lines of: ³that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific information, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor¹s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer¹s contact details mainly for the purpose of contravening the Customer¹s privacy.² Solely is too strong, and needs to be toned down as even a partial connection to a potential violation would otherwise close this door. I removed human rights as this is mainly about privacy. Showing was also toned down to indicating. The provider is not a court, he cannot make legal determinations, but he can accept indications. Finally, information was added to facts and circumstances, as again, the provider cannot make factual decisions in every case and should be able to rely on information. VG VG Am 02.04.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Williams, Todd:

Following on our call on Tuesday, I¹ve tried to incorporate the changes that others suggested to the language for III(C)(5) that I had proposed last week. New language below (changes in red). Let me know if I didn¹t capture any of what we discussed:

³that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific facts and circumstances showing that the Requestor¹s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer¹s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer¹s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).²

Also, just to reiterate what I mentioned on the call: yes, I did intend this new language in III(C)(5) to replace the old language in III(C)(5) (on the ³slam dunk² standard) and the previous draft appendix on human rights. For the reasons that I mentioned on the call and below, I think that this language more exactly and unambiguously addresses the concerns that we¹ve been discussing, without otherwise disrupting the balance that the draft proposal has attempted to strike.

Todd.

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:06 PM To: Williams, Todd; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

I have been mulling over the wording that Todd proposed on Friday. I think it should be evaluated alongside the standard we were evaluating (a "clear and convincing") as a reason for disclosure -- and I would like to hear what the Providers think. But I think it advances our discussion... tx Todd!

Kathy

On 3/27/2015 5:45 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

...

All:

I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we¹re dealing with ­ which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users¹ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we¹re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language:

C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to:

(5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor¹s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer¹s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer¹s human rights.

Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we¹ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I¹m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always.

Todd.

From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Williams, Todd Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review):

· The more that I¹ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it¹s a poor fit for what we¹re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we¹ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn¹t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily. 1) We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard. 2) On the other side, I¹m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it¹s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is). I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) ­ which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we¹re trying to fight pretext, let¹s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that: 1) I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint. 2) I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints. 3) II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that). 4) The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints. If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn¹t the best way to do it. · I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I¹m not quite sure why it¹s still bracketed. We¹re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document ­ which we¹ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus ­ is moot.

Thanks as always.

Todd.

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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 <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

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Agreed. Let’s stay within the remits of applicable laws of the provider. I don’t think the WG mission scope includes solving international conflict law issues. Luc On 07 Apr 2015, at 02:09, Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford@web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>> wrote: +1 On Apr 6, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> wrote:

From a P/P provider’s perspective, I agree with Volker’s proposed language and position that this is about privacy. I think we have to consider how respect for human rights varies around the world—some countries have little to no respect for “human rights.” Including that language puts the P/P provider in a position of arguing with a requester who doesn’t support basic human rights.

Thanks, Darcy Darcy Southwell Compliance Officer Endurance International Group M: +1 503-453-7305 Skype: darcy.enyeart www.endurance.com<x-msg://88/www.endurance.com> From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>> Date: Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Thank you Volker. Would be interested to hear what others have to say, but I’m OK with the changes that you’ve outlined below except for the change from “human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)” to “privacy.” Several thoughts on that one: · I specifically included the reference to “freedom of expression” per Kathy’s request in our call last week to make that explicit, so I’d want to hear her thoughts before we remove it. · There’s been a general sentiment – expressed most recently by Stephanie in our 3-24 call – that some reference to the human rights “edge cases” that we’ve been discussing needs to be explicit in the document. I think there are two options on the table to do so: 1) do it here; or 2) do it in the much longer “appendix” on human rights/complex case advisory group that we discussed earlier. As I’ve argued on the calls and below, I think that this option more exactly and unambiguously addresses the “edge case” concerns than did the previous appendix (or the previous “clear and convincing” language in III(C)(5), for that matter). So if by removing the reference to human rights here, we instead have to go back to square one on discussing and debating the longer appendix, I’d be against doing so. · I think substituting “privacy” for “human rights” confuses the means and ends of what we’re trying to address, and makes III(C)(5) somewhat circular. By definition, any time there is a disclosure, the beneficial user’s privacy is lessened to some extent. The language in III(C)(5) is not meant to preclude that as an end in itself – if it did, it would make the rest of the document moot. Rather, III(C)(5) precludes Requesters from submitting pretextual complaints in order to then misuse the disclosure process that we’ve developed as an improper means to a totally different end: namely, the end of somehow impinging on the Customer’s human rights. I think that we need to keep that distinction clear for III(C)(5) to work. My initial thoughts; happy to hear what others have to say. Todd. 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:06 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Todd, not having discussed this with anyone else, I'd feel more comforable with language along the lines of: “that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific information, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details mainly for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s privacy.” Solely is too strong, and needs to be toned down as even a partial connection to a potential violation would otherwise close this door. I removed human rights as this is mainly about privacy. Showing was also toned down to indicating. The provider is not a court, he cannot make legal determinations, but he can accept indications. Finally, information was added to facts and circumstances, as again, the provider cannot make factual decisions in every case and should be able to rely on information. VG VG Am 02.04.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Williams, Todd: Following on our call on Tuesday, I’ve tried to incorporate the changes that others suggested to the language for III(C)(5) that I had proposed last week. New language below (changes in red). Let me know if I didn’t capture any of what we discussed: “that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific facts and circumstances showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).” Also, just to reiterate what I mentioned on the call: yes, I did intend this new language in III(C)(5) to replace the old language in III(C)(5) (on the “slam dunk” standard) and the previous draft appendix on human rights. For the reasons that I mentioned on the call and below, I think that this language more exactly and unambiguously addresses the concerns that we’ve been discussing, without otherwise disrupting the balance that the draft proposal has attempted to strike. Todd. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:06 PM To: Williams, Todd; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc I have been mulling over the wording that Todd proposed on Friday. I think it should be evaluated alongside the standard we were evaluating (a "clear and convincing") as a reason for disclosure -- and I would like to hear what the Providers think. But I think it advances our discussion... tx Todd! Kathy On 3/27/2015 5:45 PM, Williams, Todd wrote: All: I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we’re dealing with – which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users’ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we’re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language: C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to: (5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights. Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we’ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I’m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always. Todd. 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 Williams, Todd Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review): · The more that I’ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it’s a poor fit for what we’re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we’ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn’t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily. 1) We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard. 2) On the other side, I’m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it’s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is). I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) – which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we’re trying to fight pretext, let’s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that: 1) I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint. 2) I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints. 3) II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that). 4) The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints. If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn’t the best way to do it. · I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I’m not quite sure why it’s still bracketed. We’re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document – which we’ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus – is moot. Thanks as always. Todd. -----Original Message----- 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 Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Kathy, Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call! We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did. Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> -----Original Message----- 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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. --------------------------------------------------------

Tx to Todd and Volker for the discussion. I have to admit I am torn. On the one hand, I think it is very important to clarity that we are talking about human rights concerns -- the "complex speech cases" or as Carlton has said "the fringe cases." On the other hand, I recognize that there is a reluctance to use the words "human rights." I also see Todd's balance and wording to address clearly and specifically the complex issues we have discussed for so long. I like Todd's new phrasing below: “that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificfacts and circumstances showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).” Building on Volker's revised phrasing, does the following cover the same topics and strike a new balance: “that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificinformation, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details mainly for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s privacy.legitimate rights and protections (e.g., freedom of expression and freedom of association).” [with a descriptive paragraph in the Policy to describe the complex/difficult cases we (PPSAI) intended to be covered and included.] Todd? Volker? All? Best, Kathy :

Thank you Volker. Would be interested to hear what others have to say, but I’m OK with the changes that you’ve outlined below except for the change from “human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)” to “privacy.” Several thoughts on that one:

·I specifically included the reference to “freedom of expression” per Kathy’s request in our call last week to make that explicit, so I’d want to hear her thoughts before we remove it.

·There’s been a general sentiment – expressed most recently by Stephanie in our 3-24 call – that some reference to the human rights “edge cases” that we’ve been discussing needs to be explicit in the document. I think there are two options on the table to do so: 1) do it here; or 2) do it in the much longer “appendix” on human rights/complex case advisory group that we discussed earlier. As I’ve argued on the calls and below, I think that this option more exactly and unambiguously addresses the “edge case” concerns than did the previous appendix (or the previous “clear and convincing” language in III(C)(5), for that matter). So if by removing the reference to human rights here, we instead have to go back to square one on discussing and debating the longer appendix, I’d be against doing so.

·I think substituting “privacy” for “human rights” confuses the means and ends of what we’re trying to address, and makes III(C)(5) somewhat circular. By definition, any time there is a disclosure, the beneficial user’s privacy is lessened to some extent. The language in III(C)(5) is not meant to preclude that as an end in itself – if it did, it would make the rest of the document moot. Rather, III(C)(5) precludes Requesters from submitting pretextual complaints in order to then */misuse/* the disclosure process that we’ve developed as an improper */means/* to a totally */different/* */end/*: namely, the end of somehow impinging on the Customer’s human rights. I think that we need to keep that distinction clear for III(C)(5) to work.

My initial thoughts; happy to hear what others have to say.

Todd.

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:06 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Todd,

not having discussed this with anyone else, I'd feel more comforable with language along the lines of:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificinformation, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details mainly for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s privacy.”

Solely is too strong, and needs to be toned down as even a partial connection to a potential violation would otherwise close this door. I removed human rights as this is mainly about privacy. Showing was also toned down to indicating. The provider is not a court, he cannot make legal determinations, but he can accept indications. Finally, information was added to facts and circumstances, as again, the provider cannot make factual decisions in every case and should be able to rely on information.

VG VG

Am 02.04.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Williams, Todd:

Following on our call on Tuesday, I’ve tried to incorporate the changes that others suggested to the language for III(C)(5) that I had proposed last week. New language below (changes in red). Let me know if I didn’t capture any of what we discussed:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificfacts and circumstances showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).”

Also, just to reiterate what I mentioned on the call: yes, I did intend this new language in III(C)(5) to replace the old language in III(C)(5) (on the “slam dunk” standard) and the previous draft appendix on human rights. For the reasons that I mentioned on the call and below, I think that this language more exactly and unambiguously addresses the concerns that we’ve been discussing, without otherwise disrupting the balance that the draft proposal has attempted to strike.

Todd.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:06 PM *To:* Williams, Todd; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

I have been mulling over the wording that Todd proposed on Friday. I think it should be evaluated alongside the standard we were evaluating (a "clear and convincing") as a reason for disclosure -- and I would like to hear what the Providers think. But I think it advances our discussion... tx Todd!

Kathy

On 3/27/2015 5:45 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

All:

I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we’re dealing with – which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users’ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we’re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language:

C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to:

(5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights.

Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we’ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I’m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always.

Todd.

*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 *Williams, Todd *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review):

·The more that I’ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it’s a poor fit for what we’re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we’ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn’t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily.

1)We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard.

2)On the other side, I’m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it’s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is).

I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) – which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we’re trying to fight pretext, let’s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that:

1)I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint.

2)I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints.

3)II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that).

4)The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints.

If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn’t the best way to do it.

·I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I’m not quite sure why it’s still bracketed. We’re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document – which we’ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus – is moot.

Thanks as always.

Todd.

-----Original Message----- 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 Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message-----

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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM

To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton

Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All,

Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including

a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend,

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

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

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

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I think "solely" is a high threshold for the providers to determine. With respect to the language regarding "privacy" vs "human rights/freedom of expression", etc. I think it is important to remind ourselves that we are talking about reveal....i.e. dropping the "privacy" (in the broadest sense) protections provided by the service provider. That"privacy" service is an instrument to protect privacy in the legal data protection sense, or freedom of association and expression for groups, or privacy as protection for endangered people etc. I believe we need to add more words rather than subtract them, because I think it is quite confusing, especially for those not steeped in the lingo. I think this is a useful discussion and we are definitely getting there... Stephanie Perrin On 2015-04-07 9:32, Victoria Sheckler wrote:

If we’re going down this path, Todd’s language I think is better – more clear, concise, etc.

*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Tuesday, April 7, 2015 8:47 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Tx to Todd and Volker for the discussion. I have to admit I am torn. On the one hand, I think it is very important to clarity that we are talking about human rights concerns -- the "complex speech cases" or as Carlton has said "the fringe cases." On the other hand, I recognize that there is a reluctance to use the words "human rights." I also see Todd's balance and wording to address clearly and specifically the complex issues we have discussed for so long.

I like Todd's new phrasing below:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificfacts and circumstances showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).”

Building on Volker's revised phrasing, does the following cover the same topics and strike a new balance:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificinformation, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details mainly for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s privacy.legitimate rights and protections (e.g., freedom of expression and freedom of association).” [with a descriptive paragraph in the Policy to describe the complex/difficult cases we (PPSAI) intended to be covered and included.]

Todd? Volker? All?

Best, Kathy

:

Thank you Volker. Would be interested to hear what others have to say, but I’m OK with the changes that you’ve outlined below except for the change from “human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)” to “privacy.” Several thoughts on that one:

·I specifically included the reference to “freedom of expression” per Kathy’s request in our call last week to make that explicit, so I’d want to hear her thoughts before we remove it.

·There’s been a general sentiment – expressed most recently by Stephanie in our 3-24 call – that some reference to the human rights “edge cases” that we’ve been discussing needs to be explicit in the document. I think there are two options on the table to do so: 1) do it here; or 2) do it in the much longer “appendix” on human rights/complex case advisory group that we discussed earlier. As I’ve argued on the calls and below, I think that this option more exactly and unambiguously addresses the “edge case” concerns than did the previous appendix (or the previous “clear and convincing” language in III(C)(5), for that matter). So if by removing the reference to human rights here, we instead have to go back to square one on discussing and debating the longer appendix, I’d be against doing so.

·I think substituting “privacy” for “human rights” confuses the means and ends of what we’re trying to address, and makes III(C)(5) somewhat circular. By definition, any time there is a disclosure, the beneficial user’s privacy is lessened to some extent. The language in III(C)(5) is not meant to preclude that as an end in itself – if it did, it would make the rest of the document moot. Rather, III(C)(5) precludes Requesters from submitting pretextual complaints in order to then */misuse/* the disclosure process that we’ve developed as an improper */means/* to a totally */different/* */end/*: namely, the end of somehow impinging on the Customer’s human rights. I think that we need to keep that distinction clear for III(C)(5) to work.

My initial thoughts; happy to hear what others have to say.

Todd.

*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 *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:06 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Todd,

not having discussed this with anyone else, I'd feel more comforable with language along the lines of:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificinformation, facts and/or circumstances indicating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details mainly for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s privacy.”

Solely is too strong, and needs to be toned down as even a partial connection to a potential violation would otherwise close this door. I removed human rights as this is mainly about privacy. Showing was also toned down to indicating. The provider is not a court, he cannot make legal determinations, but he can accept indications. Finally, information was added to facts and circumstances, as again, the provider cannot make factual decisions in every case and should be able to rely on information.

VG VG

Am 02.04.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Williams, Todd:

Following on our call on Tuesday, I’ve tried to incorporate the changes that others suggested to the language for III(C)(5) that I had proposed last week. New language below (changes in red). Let me know if I didn’t capture any of what we discussed:

“that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specificfacts and circumstances showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights (e.g., freedom of expression).”

Also, just to reiterate what I mentioned on the call: yes, I did intend this new language in III(C)(5) to replace the old language in III(C)(5) (on the “slam dunk” standard) and the previous draft appendix on human rights. For the reasons that I mentioned on the call and below, I think that this language more exactly and unambiguously addresses the concerns that we’ve been discussing, without otherwise disrupting the balance that the draft proposal has attempted to strike.

Todd.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:06 PM *To:* Williams, Todd; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

I have been mulling over the wording that Todd proposed on Friday. I think it should be evaluated alongside the standard we were evaluating (a "clear and convincing") as a reason for disclosure -- and I would like to hear what the Providers think. But I think it advances our discussion... tx Todd!

Kathy

On 3/27/2015 5:45 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

All:

I wanted to follow-up on the point that I raised below and in our call on Tuesday. To reiterate: I think that III(C)(5) can be more precisely drafted to address the concern that we’re dealing with – which, as I understand it, is the risk that pretextual complaints may be brought for the purpose of violating at-risk users’ human rights. Assuming that is the risk that we’re trying to mitigate, what does everybody think of this proposed draft language:

C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including but not limited to:

(5) that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found, specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s human rights.

Again, I think that more exactly and unambiguously addresses the risk that we’ve been discussing in the various hypothetical scenarios that Kathy and others have put forward. But I’m happy to discuss further on Tuesday. Thanks as always.

Todd.

*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 *Williams, Todd *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 4:20 PM *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil; Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Yes, thank you Kathy for circulating. Two initial quick thoughts that I wanted to circulate to the WG now before the call (though like Kiran, I'd want to reserve comment on other portions as I review):

·The more that I’ve thought about III(C)(5), the more I think it’s a poor fit for what we’re trying to address. As I understand it from the hypotheticals that we’ve discussed, the concern is that complainants with improper motives will use pretextual complaints to seek disclosure against vulnerable or otherwise at-risk beneficial users. But III(C)(5) doesn’t really address pretext or the subjective motives of the complainant at all. Rather, it simply outlines the standard to be used in all cases. Perhaps having a higher standard could weed out some pretextual complaints. But not necessarily.

1)We could certainly think of hypotheticals where the complainant may have pretextual or improper motives, but still puts forward a claim that on its face passes the III(C)(5) standard.

2)On the other side, I’m sure we could also think of hypotheticals where the complainant has completely pure motives, but still has one or two parts of its trademark or copyright claim that it’s still trying to pin down (in fact, that may be the very reason why it is seeking information on who the beneficial owner is).

I think III(C)(5) as currently drafted allows for disclosure in (1) but not (2) – which seems backwards to me. In other words, if we’re trying to fight pretext, let’s fight pretext. As it is, I think the draft already does a good job of that:

1)I(B)(v) contemplates revoking access for having filed a pretextual complaint.

2)I(B)(vi) contemplates Providers sharing information about pretextual complaints.

3)II(A)(7), II(B)(7), and II(C)(7) all contemplate that complaints will be submitted under penalty of perjury (with all of the deterrence against pretext that goes with that).

4)The entire Annex outlines possibilities for handling disputes that arise from pretextual complaints.

If we want to discuss as a WG whether the draft should do more on pretext, or perhaps add some language about pretext to III(C)(2) or III(C)(3), we can. But I think that trying to fit that square peg (pretext concerns) into a round hole (the III(C)(5) standard) isn’t the best way to do it.

·I like your edits Kathy to III(D), but can we as a WG agree to remove the brackets from III(D)? I’m not quite sure why it’s still bracketed. We’re already editing it (which seems pointless if it might just go away). And without III(D), the entire rest of the document – which we’ve now spent weeks trying to get to a place approaching consensus – is moot.

Thanks as always.

Todd.

-----Original Message----- 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 Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:23 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message-----

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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM

To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton

Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All,

Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including

a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend,

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

--

Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann

- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>

www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin

Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

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

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann

- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>

www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________

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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion! Best, Kathy :

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

...

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy

I would certainly vote for inviting him, as, having no direct experience with these cases as most of the rest of you do, I would welcome the opportunity to understand real live situations. STephanie Perrin On 2015-03-23 18:44, Graeme Bunton wrote:

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.

I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.

Thanks

Graeme

On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

...

I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!

Best, Kathy

:

...

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

...

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy

Though it has been repeatedly mentioned that the DMCA may be a model of uncertain value for our purposes, I need to correct Kathy's last statement. 17 USC section 512(h)(1) provides, "A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection." As previously noted, if the request contains the proper information and is in the proper form and contains a "sworn declaration" that the information obtained "will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this Title," then "the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena." 17 USC 512(h)(4). -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 6:08 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made. I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se"). Best, Kathy :

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy

Susan, you do represent one of the biggest Internet companies in the world, so surely you are not typical :-) I am sure you would be identified as a "trusted requestor" very quickly. ...but is it not possible for other less distinguishable requestors to get a letter of delegated authority that authorizes them to act for the company? These are indeed serious allegations that are being made, it is reasonable to ask who is making them and under what authority. For what it is worth, in government where I have worked, the authority to release personal information to law enforcement under a request without a warrant is managed by a delegated authority from the Minister....and it is held at a high level. It does seem only logical that a request to a service provider to forsake their obligations to their customer in favour of an outside requestor, based on unproven allegations, should be at a senior level. Just my 2cents worth, I don't work in this area but I would certainly expect us to be setting in place a process that could stand up to the closest scrutiny. Cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-23 19:40, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

Hi Kathy,

I am not comfortable with this language. I can¹t even imagine asking a VP, General Partner or Principal to make this request. I am not an attorney so it would leave me out of the process completely and I understand the current process. This is to limiting and as most companies do we rely on third parties to assist in the enforcement which doesn¹t always include attorneys. But they rely on clear instructions from the trademark owner to make a claim. Looking forward to the robust discussion tomorrow.

Signatory¹s name and legal relationship to the trademark owner. Signatories shall be limited to those with ³first-hand² knowledge of the alleged infringement: ³Owner² (if trademark owned by individual), ³President,² ³Vice President,² ³General Partner² or ³Principal² (if trademark owned by legal entity) or ³Attorney² with country and state/provice/region of attorney¹s bar membership (if legal representative appointed by trademark owner)

Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

On 3/23/15, 3:08 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

...

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

...

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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

I think Kathy's proposal is similar to what we discussed at great length in the EWG, the accreditation of users of the DRS. Now, that was going to be engineered at the authentication level, but of course this could be as well. Re the level parity I would definitely agree, it would not be correct to have a new hire at minimum wage throwing out your reveal requests....but I suspect that is not the case. cheers SP On 15-03-24 2:38 AM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

Well if we are going to raise the level of the requester to attorney or VP, principal etc. then we should also require that anyone reviewing the request on behalf of the proxy service provider be of the same level. This doesn’t make any sense to me and it is not scalable in my opinion but let’s at least give it equal weight. IF the service providers agree to only let a principal, VP or attorney review the requests then I may be fine with the requirement.

I did not understand Kathy’s proposal to include a “trusted requestor” status.

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager

Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 8:10 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>>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Susan, you do represent one of the biggest Internet companies in the world, so surely you are not typical :-) I am sure you would be identified as a "trusted requestor" very quickly. ...but is it not possible for other less distinguishable requestors to get a letter of delegated authority that authorizes them to act for the company? These are indeed serious allegations that are being made, it is reasonable to ask who is making them and under what authority. For what it is worth, in government where I have worked, the authority to release personal information to law enforcement under a request without a warrant is managed by a delegated authority from the Minister....and it is held at a high level. It does seem only logical that a request to a service provider to forsake their obligations to their customer in favour of an outside requestor, based on unproven allegations, should be at a senior level. Just my 2cents worth, I don't work in this area but I would certainly expect us to be setting in place a process that could stand up to the closest scrutiny. Cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-23 19:40, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

...

Hi Kathy,

I am not comfortable with this language. I can¹t even imagine asking a VP, General Partner or Principal to make this request. I am not an attorney so it would leave me out of the process completely and I understand the current process. This is to limiting and as most companies do we rely on third parties to assist in the enforcement which doesn¹t always include attorneys. But they rely on clear instructions from the trademark owner to make a claim. Looking forward to the robust discussion tomorrow.

Signatory¹s name and legal relationship to the trademark owner. Signatories shall be limited to those with ³first-hand² knowledge of the alleged infringement: ³Owner² (if trademark owned by individual), ³President,² ³Vice President,² ³General Partner² or ³Principal² (if trademark owned by legal entity) or ³Attorney² with country and state/provice/region of attorney¹s bar membership (if legal representative appointed by trademark owner)

Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

On 3/23/15, 3:08 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

...

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

...

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

I agree fully with Stephanie here, and note the more experienced the Requestor/attorney, the less work the Provider has to do. As Law Enforcement officers are bound by law to requirements in their representations in warrants, subpoenas and these upcoming Reveal Requests, so too are Attorneys bound by duties in representing the clients, being honest in their representations, and frankly being expert in the area of law in which they are working (e.g., you would not want me making representations/attorney as an attorney for clients with employment health and safety concerns -- as this is far outside my area of practice under US laws; IP infringement claims are another matter... ). A legal commentator wrote on legal ethics: "The principle of honesty governs the attorney in all forms of representation." It will help all of our work if the Reveal Request is not made through a consultant, a secretary, clerk or computer-generated-letter. The Request as we have now proposed it will come from someone charged with knowing the facts, law and limitations of the alleged infringement and reveal request rules-- and that someone will be charged and entrusted with the information Revealed, if at the end of the review, it is appropriate to do so. This should make life easier for the Provider - not harder -- reduce the need for parity and increase the speed of evaluation. It raises the level of trust all round - and with personal/sensitive data, and that's key. Looking forward to our call on Tuesday! Best, Kathy :

I don't believe there really is a requirement for parity here Susan. The onus is on the requestor, who is seeking to avoid a more formal legal process, to prove that the claim is legitimate, and that it is being advanced by someone with legal authority. If I may once again compare to revealing personal information in a government setting....if we release information for a lawful investigation, the investigating party has to be a police officer. The persons who process the request do not have to be equivalent levels, they have to ensure that the form is filled in and signed by a legitimate investigating authority, they have to get a badge number, name, signature and the nature of the investigation. For "slam dunk" cases, there is probably no need to have a legal authority on the registrars side authorize release, but I would hope for complex cases that the matter would be elevated to a senior level. If not, a customer might have a good argument in a lawsuit. I think we need to remember that this is the first time this matter has been dealt with in policy (ie regulated). Just because it is not required now, does not mean that the situation should persist, any more than ignoring requests should be permitted any more. Of course if I am in error here, and it has been dealt with in policy prior to our current efforts, I would be delighted to hear about it. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-24 2:38, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

...

Well if we are going to raise the level of the requester to attorney or VP, principal etc. then we should also require that anyone reviewing the request on behalf of the proxy service provider be of the same level. This doesn’t make any sense to me and it is not scalable in my opinion but let’s at least give it equal weight. IF the service providers agree to only let a principal, VP or attorney review the requests then I may be fine with the requirement.

I did not understand Kathy’s proposal to include a “trusted requestor” status.

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager

Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 8:10 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>>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Susan, you do represent one of the biggest Internet companies in the world, so surely you are not typical :-) I am sure you would be identified as a "trusted requestor" very quickly. ...but is it not possible for other less distinguishable requestors to get a letter of delegated authority that authorizes them to act for the company? These are indeed serious allegations that are being made, it is reasonable to ask who is making them and under what authority. For what it is worth, in government where I have worked, the authority to release personal information to law enforcement under a request without a warrant is managed by a delegated authority from the Minister....and it is held at a high level. It does seem only logical that a request to a service provider to forsake their obligations to their customer in favour of an outside requestor, based on unproven allegations, should be at a senior level. Just my 2cents worth, I don't work in this area but I would certainly expect us to be setting in place a process that could stand up to the closest scrutiny. Cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-23 19:40, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

...

Hi Kathy,

I am not comfortable with this language. I can¹t even imagine asking a VP, General Partner or Principal to make this request. I am not an attorney so it would leave me out of the process completely and I understand the current process. This is to limiting and as most companies do we rely on third parties to assist in the enforcement which doesn¹t always include attorneys. But they rely on clear instructions from the trademark owner to make a claim. Looking forward to the robust discussion tomorrow.

Signatory¹s name and legal relationship to the trademark owner. Signatories shall be limited to those with ³first-hand² knowledge of the alleged infringement: ³Owner² (if trademark owned by individual), ³President,² ³Vice President,² ³General Partner² or ³Principal² (if trademark owned by legal entity) or ³Attorney² with country and state/provice/region of attorney¹s bar membership (if legal representative appointed by trademark owner)

Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

On 3/23/15, 3:08 PM, "Kathy Kleiman"<kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

...

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

...

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy

---

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://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

Volker, That is what agency is. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Mar 24, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: In the end, it should be someone who has the legal power within his organization to bind the organization to agree to the legal consequences a false request might entail and who would be able to follow up on inquiries directly. We do not want to see a second understudy of the help desk staffer to send in requests. OTOH, I could live with a statement that the request has been authorized by such a person and the requestor would have to clearly delineate his position and authority within the organization. So in your case, this could be a brief statement from yourself. Best, Volker Am 24.03.2015 um 00:40 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi: Hi Kathy, I am not comfortable with this language. I can¹t even imagine asking a VP, General Partner or Principal to make this request. I am not an attorney so it would leave me out of the process completely and I understand the current process. This is to limiting and as most companies do we rely on third parties to assist in the enforcement which doesn¹t always include attorneys. But they rely on clear instructions from the trademark owner to make a claim. Looking forward to the robust discussion tomorrow. Signatory¹s name and legal relationship to the trademark owner. Signatories shall be limited to those with ³first-hand² knowledge of the alleged infringement: ³Owner² (if trademark owned by individual), ³President,² ³Vice President,² ³General Partner² or ³Principal² (if trademark owned by legal entity) or ³Attorney² with country and state/provice/region of attorney¹s bar membership (if legal representative appointed by trademark owner) Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 On 3/23/15, 3:08 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote: Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made. I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se"). Best, Kathy : Hi Kathy, Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call! We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did. Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----Original Message----- 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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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

Kathy, There is a clear difference between making the legal assessment and submitting a report and request about that assessment. Also I do not think you have to be a US lawyer to make that assessment. Verifying attorneys/lawyers globally is a challenge. We ran into this problem with the Extended Validated Cert process in which they required a lawyer opinion letter. Part of the protocol required that the cert authority independently verified the lawyer’s status that signed the letter. The lawyer also had to reside in the country of the entity owning the domain name. Our in house counsel in Singapore was not registered in the Singapore equivalent to the bar. Only law firm attorneys are included in the database. So verifying that the individual making the request is a qualified lawyer (what is the definition you would propose to use?) is extremely time consuming and difficult globally. Also to repeat my concern I made earlier if you are setting the bar this high for a simple request then the vendor’s would need to set the bar on their side that anyone reviewing the requests are also qualified lawyer. Seems like this would make a very simple process that much more complex and costly. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 On 3/24/15, 8:04 AM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

"authorized representative" is not necessarily the agency we might need - and in this case, the agent is the one submitting the legal assessment of infringement. That's a legal assessment - and the signatory should be legally able to make it.

Best, Kathy :

...

Volker,

That is what agency is.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On Mar 24, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:

In the end, it should be someone who has the legal power within his organization to bind the organization to agree to the legal consequences a false request might entail and who would be able to follow up on inquiries directly.

We do not want to see a second understudy of the help desk staffer to send in requests. OTOH, I could live with a statement that the request has been authorized by such a person and the requestor would have to clearly delineate his position and authority within the organization. So in your case, this could be a brief statement from yourself.

Best,

Volker

Am 24.03.2015 um 00:40 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi:

Hi Kathy,

I am not comfortable with this language. I can¹t even imagine asking a VP, General Partner or Principal to make this request. I am not an attorney so it would leave me out of the process completely and I understand the current process. This is to limiting and as most companies do we rely on third parties to assist in the enforcement which doesn¹t always include attorneys. But they rely on clear instructions from the trademark owner to make a claim. Looking forward to the robust discussion tomorrow.

Signatory¹s name and legal relationship to the trademark owner. Signatories shall be limited to those with ³first-hand² knowledge of the alleged infringement: ³Owner² (if trademark owned by individual), ³President,² ³Vice President,² ³General Partner² or ³Principal² (if trademark owned by legal entity) or ³Attorney² with country and state/provice/region of attorney¹s bar membership (if legal representative appointed by trademark owner)

Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

On 3/23/15, 3:08 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ican n.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

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

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________ 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 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

Well, we would like to avoid those typical mass mailings sent by automated programs where no checking has taken place. Like the takedown requests for Google.com that are sent to Google by rights-holders from time to time. Volker Am 24.03.2015 um 16:00 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

Volker,

That is what agency is.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On Mar 24, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:

In the end, it should be someone who has the legal power within his organization to bind the organization to agree to the legal consequences a false request might entail and who would be able to follow up on inquiries directly.

We do not want to see a second understudy of the help desk staffer to send in requests. OTOH, I could live with a statement that the request has been authorized by such a person and the requestor would have to clearly delineate his position and authority within the organization. So in your case, this could be a brief statement from yourself.

Best,

Volker

Am 24.03.2015 um 00:40 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi:

Hi Kathy,

I am not comfortable with this language. I can¹t even imagine asking a VP, General Partner or Principal to make this request. I am not an attorney so it would leave me out of the process completely and I understand the current process. This is to limiting and as most companies do we rely on third parties to assist in the enforcement which doesn¹t always include attorneys. But they rely on clear instructions from the trademark owner to make a claim. Looking forward to the robust discussion tomorrow.

Signatory¹s name and legal relationship to the trademark owner. Signatories shall be limited to those with ³first-hand² knowledge of the alleged infringement: ³Owner² (if trademark owned by individual), ³President,² ³Vice President,² ³General Partner² or ³Principal² (if trademark owned by legal entity) or ³Attorney² with country and state/provice/region of attorney¹s bar membership (if legal representative appointed by trademark owner)

Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

On 3/23/15, 3:08 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best, Kathy :

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message----- 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: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, 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

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

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

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

Hi Kiran, I reviewed them as well, and try as I might I found nothing that was substantially objectionable. Best, volker Am 23.03.2015 um 19:22 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!

We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.

Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:

1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)

All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?

Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.