Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 21 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-21apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr>apr<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick - Individual Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Alex Deacon -IPC Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC David Hughes - IPC Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Chris Pelling - RrSG Luc Seufer - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roger Carney - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Sarah Wyld - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Todd Williams - IPC James Gannon - NCUC David Heasley - IPC Paul McGrady - IPC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Vicky Sheckler - IPC David Cake - NCSG Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 21 April 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 21 April 2015 Mary Wong:Loud and clear, Graeme! Mary Wong::) Graeme Bunton:Gettin more tea, brb Osvaldo Novoa:Hello Bladel:Getting more Red Bull brb. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Morning/Afteroon/Evening val sherman:Hello all Holly Raiche:Hello all val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge Graeme Bunton:Thanks Val Mary Wong:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid also sends apologies. Terri Agnew:Philip Corwin has joined audio Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels Carlton Samuels:Morning everybody Kathy:How long will the public have to submit comments? Kathy:tx! Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio Bladel:I'll dial in. Bladel:I'm in. Kathy:Graeme - original changes here posted by Val. Kathy:May be good to start with Val? Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer Luc Seufer:Thank you Terri Kathy:+1 James James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I would support that. Stephanie Perrin:+1 James. There is so much going on, and our work is important Holly Raiche:+ 1 for James James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:23:59 UTC is the magic number right =) Bladel:Dparting for Buenos Aires on teh 12th of June. If you can believe that. Terri Agnew:Welcome Chris Pelling Chris Pelling:apologies fir tardiness Holly Raiche:The other question is whether we will have reached consensus on the major issues within the next few days Bladel:If Staff feels they will have comments ready for review by BA, then I'm good with that. Mary Wong:@James, that will depend in large part on when the comments come in :) Bladel:Mary: Assume 75% will come in the last 48 hours. As STeve noted, it is part of the ICANN culture. Mary Wong:No comment :) Holly Raiche:Mayabe even use the BA meeting to discuss the report within and among the constituencies Mary Wong:We provide the GAC with monthly updates on our PDPs - so they will know when we release the Report. Bladel:did my audio drop? Carlton Samuels:No sound James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Ahha scared me there Carlton Samuels:Aaaah James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Yes and many of us will be v busy with CWG and CCWG in BA. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy on commnet disabilities being designed +1 Mary Wong:Note that the period immediately post-Bs As won't necessarily be less busy, as the CWG/CCWG/ICG will still have work items for comment Mary Wong:There is also no longer a reply period in the new 40-day public comment period. Kathy:@Mary: right, but many public comment periods are now longer than 30/40 days Stephanie Perrin:That was my point, if you miss this comment period, you have missed the boat. Carlton Samuels:The At-Large is challenged to mobilise the edge even with less complex matters Holly Raiche:All he more reason to be sure that all the issues have reached consensus first - Stephanie Perrin:So are the NCSG Carlton! val sherman:Yes -- here Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - +1 Mary Wong:@Steph, everyone - hence my note to not expect that post-Bs As will be less busy, so extending the public comment period may or may not help with the time crunch issue :) Mary Wong::( I mean Holly Raiche:The issue is that the only reason mentioned is IP Carlton Samuels:I have to go. But let the record show for the proposed C.2 and C.3 is an IP lawyers dream. But this is not about IP alone. It actually narrows the scope for disclosure which is not a good thing. I would leave those alone. let it remain "the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in questio" val sherman:thank you:) James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks Val gives a good basis on the driver for the language Carlton Samuels:And this "3) [the Provider has found adequate reasons against disclosure]". No change required Terri Agnew:Paul McGrady has joined audio Carlton Samuels:I have to go. Must make a living. Mary Wong:13 April language: " the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question" Terri Agnew:goodbye Carlton steve metalitz:@Kathy can you provide a concrete example of a reason that would be "adequate" but not embraced within Val's language? Paul McGrady:Sorry to join late Mary Wong:Original language: "that the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided compelling reasons against disclosure" James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:If we start adding this level of specificity do we have to go back and look at the rest of the document and add specificity to other setions, this seems like a lot to do at this stage and would probably require extention of timelines Mary Wong:@James, it was always open to everyone to suggest modifications to any open section. Luc Seufer:Agree with Bladel. Chris Pelling:I agree whole heeartidly with JamesB Chris Pelling:Registrars are not judge nor jury Bladel:and unfortunately more common Luc Seufer:I am not found of the "slam dunk" cases but there is the blatant infringement concept in both French and Lux. laws which we could use Terri Agnew:Welcome Tatiana Khramtsova Alex Deacon:The issue boils down to the word "adequate" - its just to vague. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:oops James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:no i ssed James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:nope connection probs James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:=) Terri Agnew:@James , let me know if you need a dial out Bladel:Adobe is really letting us down today. Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy, trying to make this bullet proof for bad faith actors is the real problem we are wordsmithing over... James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Ah Ill pop it in the chat =) Ok on a philospphical level I support Kathy's points. And on a practcal level I spport the other James. We need to avoid wordsmithing here even when its from a position of good faith. There is a world outside of IP (And I'm very much a supporter of IP rights by the way) that we need to be able to respect. We cant put the providers into a positoin of having to have a team of lawyers working on these requests as may be the case in larger providers that may be dealing with large volumes of requests. I think that we need to be as paractical as possible here, lets go back to the original language that was largely agreed on and had broad support. Mary Wong:An earlier version had "adequate" versus "sufficient" (after "compelling") Holly Raiche:We did use the word compeelling - as a more polite phrase than slam dunk James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks Graeme. Alex Deacon:@kathy - would you example not be covered by vals (ii) ? i.e. defensible? James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:=) Holly Raiche:@ James +1 val sherman:James -- isn't that covered by i -- not infringing? Kathy:@Alex, defensible? Maybe the child did paint Mickey Mouse and maybe it was posted. Holly Raiche:So theanswer to my question - better without examples Terri Agnew:Welcome Vicky Sheckler Kathy:@Alex, there are different rights on both sides - some for IP owners and other sources of protection for Customers/Registrants; we have to allow both steve metalitz:@James What is the difference between "we don't see infringement" v. We have a reasonable basis to believe there is no infringement? Bladel:Steve: I don't want to put people on the record as offering a legal opinion whether or not infringement exists. More that we do not see it, even if it may actually exist. Mary Wong:How about, instead of "Provider has a reasonable basis for believing" we say "Provider believes there is a reasonable basis"? vicky sheckler:have to jump again. sorry Kathy:@Mary: how do corporations "believe" -- sorry, but a drafting issue... Mary Wong:@Kathy, just trying to offer a bit more flexibility, to tie in with a Provider's (subjective) judgment rather than make it seem as though a Provider needs to provide a legal basis. Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - we did like the word compelling rather than ideas of reasonable belief (however phrased) steve metalitz:@Kathy, bracketed language shows differing views, not which came first Bladel:i don't even remember the original language at this point. Mary Wong:@Kathy I don't think we've ever done that, even for other places in the report (not just this document) where there has been differences among the WG val sherman:From my perspective, there was no consensus on this point -- it just wasn't yet addressed steve metalitz:@James B, the original language was"compelling reasons to refuse disclosure" Kathy:@Holly and Mary: I see your point on adding words like "adequate," "compelling," "sufficient" Darcy Southwell:I agree with Kathy, Blade, Gannon, and Stephanie. For providers, the front-line personnel who handle these reveal requests are not lawyers and are not in a position to make legal judgments about infringement or non-infringement. I would support going back to using the word "compelling reasons to refuse disclosure" in the original language of III(C)(2). Holly Raiche:@ Darcy - absolutely agree Mary Wong:Sorry - very old and vestigial Mary Wong:The fuller context for these open questions can be found between pp. 50-53 of the 29 Jan 2015 version of the draft Initial Report. Kathy:This is confusing - it might be good to slave the page to the screen now.. Alex Deacon 2:agreed Kathy:tx! steve metalitz:pages 51-52 of the text on screen Mary Wong:Section 1.3.2 (pp 12-13) for the questions Mary Wong:pp 51-52 for the actual context/fuller discussion Luc Seufer:I agree to agree steve metalitz:Middle of page 54, third bullet -- escalation of relay requests Mary Wong:And current draft language on escalation - page 13 of draft report James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I'm happy to send it to comment. Darcy Southwell:I agree it should be published for comment as it is today. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I would hope that we could form a good base for further discussion based on the public comments (Which I would hope will be peentiful and constructuve =) ) Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Mary, it would help to point to these bibbits in the report, given the length of the report. Frank Michlick:Thank you Graeme & everyone. Kathy:@Mary and All: in III, how did the words "but not limited to" become deleted? James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks all good call. Mary Wong:@Kathy, do you mean the disclosure text? Paul McGrady:Thanks! Luc Seufer:merci Darcy Southwell:Thanks. val sherman:Thanks! Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you and Bye Kathy:@Mary, yes the Reveal text Mary Wong:That was in Val's suggested edits Kathy:Then let's please put in back in because there is not agreement