Agenda for WG meeting and updated Work Plan (Re: Updated document re disclosure standards)

March 2, 2015

      Dear all,

Following from Steve¹s email, here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on
Tuesday 3 March; please also note the attached revised Work Plan for this
WG, which takes into account recent discussions and updates our timeline for
publication of our Initial Report and delivery of a Final Report to the GNSO
Council:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI
2. Finalize discussion on draft document on discussion standards
3. Discuss remaining questions concerning Category F (Reveal) - see below
4. Discuss proposed WG face-to-face facilitated meeting at ICANN53
5. Next steps/next meeting
To assist with the WG¹s discussion of agenda item #3, here are the
outstanding questions for Category F, as phrased in the draft Initial Report
under discussion (they can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the Executive
Summary):

* Should there be uniform minimum standards for accredited P/P providers to
apply in determining when to Disclose or Publish, or in verifying a
requestor¹s identity?
* Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express
requests from LEA in the provider¹s jurisdiction not to notify a customer?
Should there be mandatory Publication for certain types of activity e.g.
malware/viruses or violation of terms of service relating to illegal
activity? What (if any) should the remedies be for unwarranted Publication?
* Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express
requests for Disclosure for the purpose of sending cease and desist letters
or notices of formal legal proceedings against the customer? Should customer
notification in such cases be mandatory?

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:  <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com>
Date:  Monday, March 2, 2015 at 09:54
To:  "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject:  [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated document re disclosure standards
...
PPSAI WG members,
Attached please find an updated version of the document Graeme and I
circulated prior to last week¹s meeting.  This updated version includes three
or four wording tweaks, intended to reflect the discussion on last week¹s
call.  Looking forward to further discussion on tomorrow¹s call.
Steve Metalitz
From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57
To: "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F -- updated status report and text
for discussion
...
PPSAI WG members,
This follows up on our note of Feb. 3 providing a status report on subgroup
discussions among some IP interests and p/p service providers regarding p/p
disclosure standards.  To reiterate, the group¹s work is not meant to obviate
or displace the work of the larger PPSAI WG on this issue  rather, it is
meant to constructively contribute to the discussion by producing one
proposal on this issue for the larger group¹s consideration.
In light of further consideration and of the need to move forward the WG
discussion on Category F, we present the attached document that we hope will
help provide a framework for discussion of the disclosure issue in the WG.
We emphasize that this is not a proposal from IPC, the Registrar Stakeholder
Group, or any subset of either, and that we fully anticipate the text to be
modified and improved through further discussion at the WG level. (We also
acknowledge that the WG may find the proposal wholly unsatisfactory but hope
that it will at least help advance debate.)
The attached is put forward as a starting point, to use intellectual property
infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum disclosure
standards, in a framework that addresses  (1) a service provider process for
intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would have to meet in
order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles governing
service provider action in response to a conforming request.
We look forward to the discussion of this document among WG members.
Graeme Bunton
Steve Metalitz
From: Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:57 PM
To: PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org)
Subject: Category F -- status report
Dear WG colleagues,
As you know, several PPSAI Working Group members, including representatives
of the IPC and privacy and proxy service providers, have endeavored to
develop a collaborative proposal on the minimum standards for disclosure
(Category F). The group¹s work is not meant to obviate or displace the work
of the larger group on this issue  rather, it is meant to constructively
contribute to the discussion by producing one proposal on this issue for the
larger group¹s consideration. This is an update on this sub-group¹s progress.
But first, a little background: At the face-to-face meeting of the PPSAI
Working Group in Los Angeles on October 10, 2014, one important topic was
minimum standards for disclosure of contact information of customers of
privacy/proxy services who may or may not be using their private domain name
registrations to carry out infringing or other abusive activities.
Prior to the face-to-face meeting, IPC participants in the Working Group
circulated a proposal on this topic.  A responsive redline was circulated to
the WG by Volker Greimann.
Following extensive discussion of these proposals and of the topic in general
at the face-to-face meeting, a sub-group of WG participants have continued
this discussion.  The sub-group includes participants from the IPC and
privacy/proxy service providers. Meeting by teleconference and working over
e-mail, the sub-group has sought to develop a text that could be jointly
presented to the PPSAI Working Group as a framework for further discussion on
the issue of standards for disclosure.
Some progress has been made, and the sub-group is continuing its efforts with
the goal of producing a document for presentation to the PPSAI Working Group
as soon after the Singapore ICANN meeting as feasible.  If such a document is
completed, it is hoped that it would be a constructive contribution to
eventual WG approval of a set of recommendations on ³Category F² for
inclusion in the Draft Report of the WG.
Unlike the documents discussed by the full WG last October, the framework
under discussion does not purport to establish a single general policy for
when disclosure of contact information in cases of alleged abusive activities
would be available.  Instead, it seeks to focus more narrowly on intellectual
property infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum
disclosure standards.  The framework would describe (1) a service provider
process for intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would
have to meet in order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles
governing service provider action in response to a conforming request.  While
considerable progress has been made in the first two areas, a number of
critical issues remain to be resolved in the third area, and discussion has
not been concluded on any of the areas.
The expressed common goal of the discussion group participants is a framework
that would give requestors a higher degree of certainty and predictability as
to if, when and how they could obtain what level of disclosure; that would
preserve for service providers a sufficient degree of flexibility and
discretion in acting upon requests for disclosure; and that would include
reasonable safeguards and procedures to protect the legitimate interests of
customers of accredited proxy/privacy service providers.  Of course,
balancing these interests is the difficult task before our working group. As
stated, participants in the discussion group hope to be able to make a
constructive contribution to the WG¹s efforts to do so.
Graeme Bunton
Steve Metalitz

Mary Wong

Don M. Blumenthal

tags

participants (2)