Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Dear all, The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved and is being circulated as a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG. Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "*authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. *It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "*or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity." **So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be:** * *c) ** Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner **(e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity).*** ** Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting
Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following:
* _The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory_: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * _The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C_: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks, Kathy just to clarify that it wasn¹t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the ³nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner², with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity."
So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be:
c) Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner (e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity). Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy
On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved and is being circulated as a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-p dp-wg
Tx Mary, much to discuss tomorrow. In the meantime, would it be possible to get a full redline of the draft document from last week to this week -- both the inserts and the deletions? I think there was a lot of text deleted and it would be go to be able to review it easily.... Tx! Kathy On 3/30/2015 1:28 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "*authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. *It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "*or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity."
**So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be:** *
*c) ** Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner **(e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity).***
Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy
On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting
Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following:
* _The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory_: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * _The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C_: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Kathy, sure thing I¹ve sent it to you separately as it¹s now a pretty huge and colorful document, so the chairs had thought it might be more helpful for the WG to have a somewhat cleaner version on hand for this week. If what I just sent to you looks a bit too psychedelic as a result, it may be easier to view the changes by doing a direct comparison between the document sent out for the call last week and the latest version sent out earlier today (though that may depend on your computer settings and programs). If other WG members would also like a copy of the full ³tracked changes" version, please let me know. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 13:34 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Tx Mary, much to discuss tomorrow. In the meantime, would it be possible to get a full redline of the draft document from last week to this week -- both the inserts and the deletions? I think there was a lot of text deleted and it would be go to be able to review it easily....
Tx! Kathy
On 3/30/2015 1:28 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks, Kathy just to clarify that it wasn¹t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the ³nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner², with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity."
So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be:
c) Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner (e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity). Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy
On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved and is being circulated as a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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-p dp-wg
Hi Mary, The full "tracked changes" version is very useful - tx you! Let me share in case others want the full color and comparison experience... Best, Kathy On 3/30/2015 2:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hi Kathy, sure thing – I’ve sent it to you separately as it’s now a pretty huge and colorful document, so the chairs had thought it might be more helpful for the WG to have a somewhat cleaner version on hand for this week. If what I just sent to you looks a bit too psychedelic as a result, it may be easier to view the changes by doing a direct comparison between the document sent out for the call last week and the latest version sent out earlier today (though that may depend on your computer settings and programs).
If other WG members would also like a copy of the full “tracked changes" version, please let me know.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 13:34 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Tx Mary, much to discuss tomorrow. In the meantime, would it be possible to get a full redline of the draft document from last week to this week -- both the inserts and the deletions? I think there was a lot of text deleted and it would be go to be able to review it easily....
Tx! Kathy
On 3/30/2015 1:28 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "*authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. *It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "*or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity."
**So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be:** *
*c) ** Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner **(e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity).***
Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy
On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting
Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following:
* _The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory_: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * _The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C_: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly
Very well said Holly, thank you for saying very eloquently what many of are attempting to elucidate! -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:37 PM To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Holly I absolutely agree with "The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.² But I do not agree this has to be an attorney. What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? I find it fairly difficult to submit a request to a proxy vendor. If I have built a relationship with them then they may have our trademark information on record but I still have to email a predetermined email address and state my claims in the request. No one else has the same email address to submit requests to as far as I know. If it is not a vendor that I have built a relationship with then figuring out how to submit a request can be difficult or it is a form I am required to fill out with a captcha. I may have missed the description of computer automated proxy requests but it would be good to clarify what we are trying to solve for. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 On 3/30/15, 3:37 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN¹s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven¹t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back. Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here. Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder. Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050
If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it. The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day. So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests? Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank Michlick Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back. Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here. Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder. Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15
Phil, automated messages are a harm for providers, customers and (maybe surprisingly to some) complainants alike. The quality of such complaints are usually significantly lower than those manually vetted, which endangers registrants. This increases the workload on service providers who will have to deal with these Finally, as a consequence of the above, high-volume automated complaints significantly increase the response times and backlogs of service providers, resulting in significantly increased delays in the response times for all complainants. Best, Volker Am 31.03.2015 um 03:22 schrieb Phil Corwin:
If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it.
The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day.
So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests?
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank Michlick Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back.
Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here.
Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder.
Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15 _______________________________________________ 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.
All: I wanted to pick up on something that Phil and Volker said below. I'm not sure that the proposal on the table that we are debating (request must come from an attorney, VP, etc.) is a good fit for the issue that we're trying to account for (automated notices). If automated notices are the concern, what does everybody think of this - can we add a sentence to the preamble (could be the last sentence) that says something along the lines of: "Given the importance of these interests, and given the nature of the balance that this policy strikes, evidence of the use of automation (i.e., the absence of human review) by any of the parties involved (Requestors, Service Providers, or Customers) to complete any of the steps in the processes outlined below shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this policy." I think that would be a more narrowly tailored way to address the concern that is on the table that wouldn't run into the problems inherent in trying to limit who can submit complaints (which Kiran, Susan, and others have outlined). Happy to discuss on the call. Todd. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:34 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Phil, automated messages are a harm for providers, customers and (maybe surprisingly to some) complainants alike. The quality of such complaints are usually significantly lower than those manually vetted, which endangers registrants. This increases the workload on service providers who will have to deal with these Finally, as a consequence of the above, high-volume automated complaints significantly increase the response times and backlogs of service providers, resulting in significantly increased delays in the response times for all complainants. Best, Volker Am 31.03.2015 um 03:22 schrieb Phil Corwin:
If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it.
The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day.
So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests?
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank Michlick Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back.
Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here.
Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder.
Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15 _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks Todd. I agree that you and Phil are heading down a good path here. May I suggest a slight tweak? I'm concerned that the language is overbroad. What if the provider had an automatic "we have received your email and are looking into it" message? That would create a presumption of non-compliance. May I suggest instead a standard that creates a presumption of non-compliance if the decision to file (by a complaining party), the decision to object (by a P/P customer) or the decision to reject (by a provider) are an automated process (as opposed to being handled through an automated process such as a dashboard full of today's likely infringers, today's complaints by brand owners against my business model, or today's complainant by brand owners and/or response by customers to those complaints). Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Williams, Todd Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:43 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests All: I wanted to pick up on something that Phil and Volker said below. I'm not sure that the proposal on the table that we are debating (request must come from an attorney, VP, etc.) is a good fit for the issue that we're trying to account for (automated notices). If automated notices are the concern, what does everybody think of this - can we add a sentence to the preamble (could be the last sentence) that says something along the lines of: "Given the importance of these interests, and given the nature of the balance that this policy strikes, evidence of the use of automation (i.e., the absence of human review) by any of the parties involved (Requestors, Service Providers, or Customers) to complete any of the steps in the processes outlined below shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this policy." I think that would be a more narrowly tailored way to address the concern that is on the table that wouldn't run into the problems inherent in trying to limit who can submit complaints (which Kiran, Susan, and others have outlined). Happy to discuss on the call. Todd. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:34 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Phil, automated messages are a harm for providers, customers and (maybe surprisingly to some) complainants alike. The quality of such complaints are usually significantly lower than those manually vetted, which endangers registrants. This increases the workload on service providers who will have to deal with these Finally, as a consequence of the above, high-volume automated complaints significantly increase the response times and backlogs of service providers, resulting in significantly increased delays in the response times for all complainants. Best, Volker Am 31.03.2015 um 03:22 schrieb Phil Corwin:
If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it.
The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day.
So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests?
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank Michlick Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back.
Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here.
Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder.
Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15 _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 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.
I support Paul's tweak to Todd's proposal. I will be on the call today, but will not be on Adobe Connect, I have just moved house and don't have my internet set up. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 31, 2015, at 6:57 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Todd. I agree that you and Phil are heading down a good path here. May I suggest a slight tweak? I'm concerned that the language is overbroad. What if the provider had an automatic "we have received your email and are looking into it" message? That would create a presumption of non-compliance. May I suggest instead a standard that creates a presumption of non-compliance if the decision to file (by a complaining party), the decision to object (by a P/P customer) or the decision to reject (by a provider) are an automated process (as opposed to being handled through an automated process such as a dashboard full of today's likely infringers, today's complaints by brand owners against my business model, or today's complainant by brand owners and/or response by customers to those complaints).
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Williams, Todd Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:43 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
All:
I wanted to pick up on something that Phil and Volker said below.
I'm not sure that the proposal on the table that we are debating (request must come from an attorney, VP, etc.) is a good fit for the issue that we're trying to account for (automated notices). If automated notices are the concern, what does everybody think of this - can we add a sentence to the preamble (could be the last sentence) that says something along the lines of:
"Given the importance of these interests, and given the nature of the balance that this policy strikes, evidence of the use of automation (i.e., the absence of human review) by any of the parties involved (Requestors, Service Providers, or Customers) to complete any of the steps in the processes outlined below shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this policy."
I think that would be a more narrowly tailored way to address the concern that is on the table that wouldn't run into the problems inherent in trying to limit who can submit complaints (which Kiran, Susan, and others have outlined).
Happy to discuss on the call.
Todd.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:34 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Phil,
automated messages are a harm for providers, customers and (maybe surprisingly to some) complainants alike.
The quality of such complaints are usually significantly lower than those manually vetted, which endangers registrants. This increases the workload on service providers who will have to deal with these Finally, as a consequence of the above, high-volume automated complaints significantly increase the response times and backlogs of service providers, resulting in significantly increased delays in the response times for all complainants.
Best,
Volker
Am 31.03.2015 um 03:22 schrieb Phil Corwin: If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it.
The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day.
So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests?
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank Michlick Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back.
Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here.
Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder.
Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15 _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
This is an acceptable approach to resolving the concern of mass automated requests. The purpose of a request, and the need for contact information, is to initiate an IP proceeding or to initiate a criminal investigation. The task of compiling information relevant to begin a proceeding or criminal investigation is typically not done by individuals at the highest level of an organization. Most organizations have well-trained staff monitoring the Internet in the spirit of brand protection, as well as for other illicit activity. These are the individuals tasked with gathering and compiling relevant data for proceedings which includes making requests to service providers for relevant information. Limiting who can request information to an attorney or other high level official in an organization, is just not feasible. On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com> wrote:
All:
I wanted to pick up on something that Phil and Volker said below.
I'm not sure that the proposal on the table that we are debating (request must come from an attorney, VP, etc.) is a good fit for the issue that we're trying to account for (automated notices). If automated notices are the concern, what does everybody think of this - can we add a sentence to the preamble (could be the last sentence) that says something along the lines of:
"Given the importance of these interests, and given the nature of the balance that this policy strikes, evidence of the use of automation (i.e., the absence of human review) by any of the parties involved (Requestors, Service Providers, or Customers) to complete any of the steps in the processes outlined below shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance with this policy."
I think that would be a more narrowly tailored way to address the concern that is on the table that wouldn't run into the problems inherent in trying to limit who can submit complaints (which Kiran, Susan, and others have outlined).
Happy to discuss on the call.
Todd.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:34 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Phil,
automated messages are a harm for providers, customers and (maybe surprisingly to some) complainants alike.
The quality of such complaints are usually significantly lower than those manually vetted, which endangers registrants. This increases the workload on service providers who will have to deal with these Finally, as a consequence of the above, high-volume automated complaints significantly increase the response times and backlogs of service providers, resulting in significantly increased delays in the response times for all complainants.
Best,
Volker
Am 31.03.2015 um 03:22 schrieb Phil Corwin:
If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it.
The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day.
So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests?
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank Michlick Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? Hi,
I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with invalid whois complaints a while back.
Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here.
Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by people working for the trademark holder.
Best regards, Frank Michlick -- Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc. p: (514) 315-1050
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15 _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *Terri Stumme* *Intellligence Analyst*
Hi Susan I am very relaxed about the word legal/attorney or whatever If you or someone else acting with your knowledge and/or approval seeks to have the information for a ‘reveal’ in the agreed form, terrific! The cases that worry me are when notices are either automatically sent or sent without someone with the requisite knowledge or skill authorising it - and it is those situations for which I want terminology Thanks for your comments Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 10:42 am, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> wrote:
Holly
I absolutely agree with "The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.² But I do not agree this has to be an attorney.
What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests to proxy vendors? I find it fairly difficult to submit a request to a proxy vendor. If I have built a relationship with them then they may have our trademark information on record but I still have to email a predetermined email address and state my claims in the request. No one else has the same email address to submit requests to as far as I know.
If it is not a vendor that I have built a relationship with then figuring out how to submit a request can be difficult or it is a form I am required to fill out with a captcha. I may have missed the description of computer automated proxy requests but it would be good to clarify what we are trying to solve for.
Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
On 3/30/15, 3:37 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN¹s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven¹t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason. FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance. It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Carlton, What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification. Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason. FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance. It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly _______________________________________________ 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.
I also eagerly await a clarification. If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Carlton, What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification. 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 Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason. FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance. It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Kiran and Paul I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so. That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable. Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
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 Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Holly, We are not the one's claiming that disagreement is unreasonable. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Kiran and Paul
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
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 Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Nor are we Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:44 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Holly,
We are not the one's claiming that disagreement is unreasonable.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Kiran and Paul
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
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 Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Then certainly there is a "reasonable" clarification to the comment: "Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason." Again, I look forward to Carltons respond. Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Nor are we
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:44 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Holly,
We are not the one's claiming that disagreement is unreasonable.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Kiran and Paul
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
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 Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would automatically be written off as "unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date. -----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Kiran and Paul I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so. That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable. Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
Best, Paul
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
If I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of his other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled". If you read past the first line, he was pointing out that reasonable people on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must compromise and find a way to accommodate each other. I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly. How do we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is not unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a deluge of requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to explain why they have a right to privacy. Seems doable to me, given time and patience. cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would automatically be written off as "unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date.
-----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Kiran and Paul
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
Best, Paul
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked thro ugh goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
And replying to my own comment, may I repeat the heart of Carlton's response, my emphasis added on parts I consider key: It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling thatfor a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust.Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. On 2015-03-30 22:13, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
If I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of his other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled". If you read past the first line, he was pointing out that reasonable people on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must compromise and find a way to accommodate each other. I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly. How do we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is not unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a deluge of requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to explain why they have a right to privacy. Seems doable to me, given time and patience. cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would automatically be written off as "unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date.
-----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Kiran and Paul
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
Best, Paul
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we ar e still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked thr o ugh goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
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
Please remember that copyright - the rights to ones authorship - is also a fundamental human right under the declaration of human rights. Sent from my iPad On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: And replying to my own comment, may I repeat the heart of Carlton's response, my emphasis added on parts I consider key: It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. On 2015-03-30 22:13, Stephanie Perrin wrote: If I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of his other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled". If you read past the first line, he was pointing out that reasonable people on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must compromise and find a way to accommodate each other. I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly. How do we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is not unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a deluge of requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to explain why they have a right to privacy. Seems doable to me, given time and patience. cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would automatically be written off as "unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date. -----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Kiran and Paul I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so. That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable. Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com><mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: I also eagerly await a clarification. If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com><mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com><mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Carlton, What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification. Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org<http://cann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason. FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance. It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we ar e still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked thr o ugh goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Victoria, No-one is disputing that, but lets remember that we can also reference the following: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. * We need to be balanced in our approach to either side of this argument. I understand that the investigations team is traditionally the source of infringement notices, however in this case we are talking about revealing an identity something which needs to be held to a higher standard in my opinion. I don;t think anyone is asking that investigations and inquiry needs to be run by a team of VP’s and partners, however some of us are asking that when considering a reveal request that a person of sufficient merit and authority should be the one to take that step up to ‘the next level’. Its also important to note that IP is not the only consideration, reveal requests may be used to unmask registrants in a multitude of other situations where again we need to be cognisant of the standard of process that we must apply to this. I hope that both sides can come to a common middle on this issue, where we recognise each others positions as ones based in our own areas of concern and expertise, and that we try and refrain from resorting to arguments of emotion on either side. ( NO matter who passionate we are about our particular stance) Looking forward to speaking with you all on my first call later today. James On 31 Mar 2015, at 13:17, Victoria Sheckler <Victoria.Sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:Victoria.Sheckler@riaa.com>> wrote: Please remember that copyright - the rights to ones authorship - is also a fundamental human right under the declaration of human rights. Sent from my iPad On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: And replying to my own comment, may I repeat the heart of Carlton's response, my emphasis added on parts I consider key: It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. On 2015-03-30 22:13, Stephanie Perrin wrote: If I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of his other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled". If you read past the first line, he was pointing out that reasonable people on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must compromise and find a way to accommodate each other. I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly. How do we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is not unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a deluge of requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to explain why they have a right to privacy. Seems doable to me, given time and patience. cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would automatically be written off as "unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date. -----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Kiran and Paul I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so. That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable. Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com><mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: I also eagerly await a clarification. If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com><mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com><mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Carlton, What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification. Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i cann.org<http://cann.org/>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason. FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance. It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we ar e still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked thr o ugh goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I know, but it is also one of the more difficult areas to check as there is no central repository. So as a provider, all we see is claims that could be either true or false and that have to be taken at face value. And even when an artist believes he holds all rights in a title and goes after infringing parties, he can still be found to have ripped it off someone else and be ordered to pay millions to the other artist. VG Am 31.03.2015 um 14:17 schrieb Victoria Sheckler:
Please remember that copyright - the rights to ones authorship - is also a fundamental human right under the declaration of human rights.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
And replying to my own comment, may I repeat the heart of Carlton's response, my emphasis added on parts I consider key: It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling thatfor a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust.Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
On 2015-03-30 22:13, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
If I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of his other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled". If you read past the first line, he was pointing out that reasonable people on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must compromise and find a way to accommodate each other. I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly. How do we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is not unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a deluge of requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to explain why they have a right to privacy. Seems doable to me, given time and patience. cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would automatically be written off as "unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date.
-----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Kiran and Paul
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I (and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I also eagerly await a clarification.
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
Best, Paul
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i
cann.org <http://cann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN's attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we ar e still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven't heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked thr o ugh goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
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
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Paul: ..the arguments presented were, IMHO, rational and reasoned. It isn't that you could not be reasonable in rubbishing them. Just the quality of the reasons might be suspect. Sorry if my use of language irks. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:05 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
Best,
Paul
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM *To:* Holly Raiche *Cc:* PPSAI *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]
Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.
We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify.
There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Folks
Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information.
What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.
I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request.
End my rant
Holly _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks Carlton. I just want to be sure that everyone on the team is given the presumption of reasonability until they prove otherwise. Seems fair. I appreciate your reply back. Best, Paul From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:27 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Holly Raiche; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Hi Paul: ..the arguments presented were, IMHO, rational and reasoned. It isn't that you could not be reasonable in rubbishing them. Just the quality of the reasons might be suspect. Sorry if my use of language irks. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:876-818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:05 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Carlton, What do you mean when you say “cannot be refuted in good reason”? I’d like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/clarification. 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<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason. FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance. It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.] Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal. We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and verify. There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:876-818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Folks Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the transmogrified requirement on registrars to publish personal information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect their personal information unless there are established and accepted reasons otherwise. The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict - between information that can be made public, information that should not be public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals. And until EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to reveal that information. What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for revealing personal information. Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least in theory. While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity. The IP cases are more difficult. However, I think we have made really good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement. I think we have all become aware of situations where automated notices are generated alleging infringement. Clearly, that must question the extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights. It is not about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant. The registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information. The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy. As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that. What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested. Happy if other words can be found. But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each individual request. End my rant Holly _______________________________________________ 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. 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.
Thank you Mary. There was absolutely no agreement to change the type of signatory, there was significant pushback in the group regarding Kathy's changes on the list and there was very little opportunity to discuss on the call. Looking forward to discussing further tomorrow. This is obviously an important issue. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:31 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity." So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be: c) Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner (e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity). Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG. Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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
Mary, I’m quite certain we have not come to any consensus or agreement regarding the proposed changes related to the type of signatory required. As such it would be premature to make updates to the draft... Thanks. Alex On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 03/30/2015 at 10:28:31 AM Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity." So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be: c) Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner (e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity). Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG. Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 * Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified * PGP Unprotected * text/plain body * PGP Unprotected _______________________________________________ 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 * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 03/30/2015 at 10:28:31 AM * text/plain body * text/html body * Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified
Mary, We agree. Jim James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff@sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 [cid:image3f7458.JPG@fb497a01.418031be]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:14 PM To: mary.wong@icann.org Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March Mary, I’m quite certain we have not come to any consensus or agreement regarding the proposed changes related to the type of signatory required. As such it would be premature to make updates to the draft... Thanks. Alex On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 03/30/2015 at 10:28:31 AM Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity." So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be: (1) c) Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner(e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity). Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Dear all, The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG. Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 * Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified * PGP Unprotected * text/plain body * PGP Unprotected _______________________________________________ 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 * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 03/30/2015 at 10:28:31 AM * text/plain body * text/html body * Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Unless that update would showcase the different positions. Best, Volker Am 30.03.2015 um 20:13 schrieb Alex_Deacon@mpaa.org:
Mary,
I’m quite certain we have not come to any consensus or agreement regarding the proposed changes related to the type of signatory required. As such it would be premature to make updates to the draft...
Thanks.
Alex
On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
* PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 03/30/2015 at 10:28:31 AM Thanks, Kathy – just to clarify that it wasn’t clear to us (staff) that the list discussions resulted in agreement to change the type of signatory, from someone who has to describe the “nature of his/her authority to speak for the TM (or copyright) owner”, with two illustrative examples (i.e. the authorization can be to a licensed attorney or a corporate officer), to a more limited class consisting either of the rights-holder, legal counsel or a corporate officer. It seemed to us that questions still remained over issues such as parity and the need to have the request originate from someone who has performed a legal analysis of the alleged infringement. I apologize if that is not the case, and am happy to change the draft as suggested for the call tomorrow.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:57 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March
Hi Mary and All, I would like to point out that the discussion in Request Templates has moved a past the current draft language in II.C.6. -- and the current language still leaves room for someone to be a secretary, clerk or computer. The language being proposed last week is/was "*authorized legal representative" -- meaning counsel or attorney working for the company or as outside counsel. *It would of course be appropriate, for those businesses too small to have counsel to have the language (that is newly included), "*or corporate officer with signing authority if trademark is owned by a legal entity."
**So the proposed language as we were discussing it last week should be:** *
*c) **Signed by the trademark owner (where an individual), the authorized legal representative and counsel of the trademark owner **(e.g. licensed attorney handling the alleged infringement), or corporate officer with signing authority (if trademark is owned by a legal entity).***
Ditto for the copyrights. Now we have someone we can trust to submit the Reveal Request - and someone we can trust with the personal and sensitive data when it is Revealed - a proper authority for accountability! Best, Kathy
On 3/30/2015 10:45 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting
Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved – and is being circulated as – a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG.
Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following:
* _The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory_: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * _The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C_: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
* Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified
* PGP Unprotected * text/plain body * PGP Unprotected
_______________________________________________ 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
* PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 03/30/2015 at 10:28:31 AM * text/plain body * text/html body * Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> * Issuer: DigiCert Inc - Unverified
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Mary. Re the annex, because some of the changes you have included in the redline you circulated yesterday are quite substantive, I paste below the original text of the annex for ready reference. ANNEX: some options for resolving disputes arising from alleged false statements leading to improper disclosures Arbitration: Any controversy, claim or dispute arising between the Service Provider and the Requestor as a result of alleged wrongful disclosure of Customer's contact information shall be referred to and finally determined by a dispute-resolution service provider approved by ICANN, in accordance with standards established by ICANN. Under these standards, disclosure is in bad faith and wrongful only when it is effected by the Requestor having made knowingly false representations to the Provider with the intent to deceive. Disclosure is not wrongful if the Requestor had a good faith basis for seeking disclosure at the time the Request was submitted to the Provider. Judgment on an award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having competent jurisdiction over the Requestor. [Jurisdiction In making submission, Requester agrees to be bound by jurisdiction at seat of the Service Provider for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by false statements.] ["Trusted sender" Include arbitration or jurisdiction in list of permissible request submission management criteria (under I(B)).] Looking forward to our call. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:45 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 31 March Dear all, The proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday 31 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss Annex to draft Disclosure framework document (see attachment) 3. Discuss Section III.C of draft Disclosure framework document (see second attachment) 4. Discuss remaining issues concerning draft Disclosure framework and Category F (if time permits) 5. Next steps/next meeting Please note that for ease of review, the Annex has been saved - and is being circulated as - a separate document. In this version, staff has attempted to rephrase (without changing the meaning or substance) of some of the language that appeared as shorter-form text in the original draft framework. We have also inserted two comments/questions for consideration by the WG. Please note also that, in respect of the draft Disclosure framework document, this version accepts most of the changes discussed/proposed at the last few meeting, with the exception, mainly, of the following: * The details to be disclosed about the identity of the Requestor, including who can be a Signatory: this version includes the recent changes from 16 & 22 March proposed by Kathy, with the exception that an option to replace the specific senior titles for a Signatory with the concept of an authorized corporate officer is offered. * The grounds for refusal to disclose in III.C: this version incorporates suggestions from the last WG call and adds the language suggested by Todd Williams to III.C.5. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
participants (18)
-
Alex_Deacon＠mpaa.org -
Bikoff, James -
Carlton Samuels -
Frank Michlick -
Holly Raiche -
James Gannon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Metalitz, Steven -
Phil Corwin -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi -
Terri Stumme -
Victoria Sheckler -
Volker Greimann -
Williams, Todd