FW: Edits to Initial Report on the P/P Services Accreditation Issues
Hello everyone, I¹m forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who¹s having some problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our discussions, Kathy! Cheers Mary
All, I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary: 1. 1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes place over time.
2. 1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests ³What should be the minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an electronic communication.
3. 1.3.2 Following the section on ³In addition, the WG is considering the following language for request by intellectual property owners or their representatives² **[add] The WG is also trying to determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or otherwise a misuse or abuse of the ³reveal² process. An example discussed in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider¹s notice of disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where the Customer is actually the ³senior² (prior) trademark user or ³original² copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its legal system allows such challenges.
4. 1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third paragraph before the sentence: ³The community is invited to provide input² and includeè Many members of the WG expressed concern that many noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs, bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more horrific consequences.
I think the background on all sides will help commenters Best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________
Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman@fhhlaw.com <mailto:kleiman@fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com <http://www.fhhlaw.com/> |www.commlawblog.com <http://www.commlawblog.com/>
Thanks, Mary, and thanks to Kathy for taking the time to propose some language. I won't be able to join the call today, unfortunately. I'd object to the addition of the 1.3.3 language (#4 in Mary's/Kathy's email). I'm not sure that any additional language is necessary at all, and in any case, I wouldn't view that language as reflecting the balance that I think the report is seeking to achieve. Thanks! John Horton President, LegitScript *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I’m forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who’s having some problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our discussions, Kathy!
Cheers Mary
All,
I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary:
1. 1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes place over time.
2. 1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests “What should be the minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an electronic communication.
3. 1.3.2 Following the section on “In addition, the WG is considering the following language for request by intellectual property owners or their representatives…” **[add] The WG is also trying to determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or otherwise a misuse or abuse of the “reveal” process. An example discussed in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider’s notice of disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where the Customer is actually the “senior” (prior) trademark user or “original” copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its legal system allows such challenges.
4. 1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third paragraph before the sentence: “The community is invited to provide input…” and includeè Many members of the WG expressed concern that many noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs, bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more horrific consequences.
I think the background on all sides will help commenters…
Best,
Kathy
_____________________________________________________________________________
[image: cid:image003.png@01CB79CE.32383780]
Kathy Kleiman
Internet Counsel
1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman@fhhlaw.com | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Dear All: I am sick with the flu and can't join today's call, but would like to echo John's concern about Kathy's proposed language in #4 below. Let's try and strike a balance with measured language that isn't fear-mongering. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello everyone, I’m forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who’s having some problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our discussions, Kathy! Cheers Mary All, I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary: 1. 1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes place over time. 2. 1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests “What should be the minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an electronic communication. 3. 1.3.2 Following the section on “In addition, the WG is considering the following language for request by intellectual property owners or their representatives…” **[add] The WG is also trying to determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or otherwise a misuse or abuse of the “reveal” process. An example discussed in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider’s notice of disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where the Customer is actually the “senior” (prior) trademark user or “original” copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its legal system allows such challenges. 4. 1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third paragraph before the sentence: “The community is invited to provide input…” and include==> Many members of the WG expressed concern that many noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs, bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more horrific consequences. I think the background on all sides will help commenters… Best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ <image001.png> Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman@fhhlaw.com<mailto:kleiman@fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com<http://www.fhhlaw.com/> |www.commlawblog.com<http://www.commlawblog.com/> <image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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
Agree w/ john and Kiran -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:11 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Kathryn Kleiman Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Edits to Initial Report on the P/P Services Accreditation Issues Dear All: I am sick with the flu and can't join today's call, but would like to echo John's concern about Kathy's proposed language in #4 below. Let's try and strike a balance with measured language that isn't fear-mongering. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello everyone, I'm forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who's having some problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our discussions, Kathy! Cheers Mary All, I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary: 1. 1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes place over time. 2. 1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests "What should be the minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an electronic communication. 3. 1.3.2 Following the section on "In addition, the WG is considering the following language for request by intellectual property owners or their representatives..." **[add] The WG is also trying to determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or otherwise a misuse or abuse of the "reveal" process. An example discussed in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider's notice of disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where the Customer is actually the "senior" (prior) trademark user or "original" copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its legal system allows such challenges. 4. 1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third paragraph before the sentence: "The community is invited to provide input..." and include==> Many members of the WG expressed concern that many noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs, bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more horrific consequences. I think the background on all sides will help commenters... Best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ <image001.png> Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman@fhhlaw.com<mailto:kleiman@fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com<http://www.fhhlaw.com/> |www.commlawblog.com<http://www.commlawblog.com/> <image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Libby ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil [Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:10 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Kathryn Kleiman Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Edits to Initial Report on the P/P Services Accreditation Issues Dear All: I am sick with the flu and can't join today's call, but would like to echo John's concern about Kathy's proposed language in #4 below. Let's try and strike a balance with measured language that isn't fear-mongering. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello everyone, I’m forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who’s having some problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our discussions, Kathy! Cheers Mary All, I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary: 1. 1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes place over time. 2. 1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests “What should be the minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an electronic communication. 3. 1.3.2 Following the section on “In addition, the WG is considering the following language for request by intellectual property owners or their representatives…” **[add] The WG is also trying to determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or otherwise a misuse or abuse of the “reveal” process. An example discussed in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider’s notice of disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where the Customer is actually the “senior” (prior) trademark user or “original” copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its legal system allows such challenges. 4. 1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third paragraph before the sentence: “The community is invited to provide input…” and include==> Many members of the WG expressed concern that many noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs, bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more horrific consequences. I think the background on all sides will help commenters… Best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ <image001.png> Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman@fhhlaw.com<mailto:kleiman@fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com<http://www.fhhlaw.com/> |www.commlawblog.com<http://www.commlawblog.com/> <image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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 too agree with John's comment and support it being removed or rewritten for a more balanced perspective. -Susan ~~~~~ *Susan Prosser*VP, Partner & Industry Relations DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: *susan@domaintools.com <http://susan@domaintools.com/> * www.domaintools.com On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Baney, Libby <libby.baney@faegrebd.com> wrote:
+1
Libby
________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil [ Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:10 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Kathryn Kleiman Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Edits to Initial Report on the P/P Services Accreditation Issues
Dear All:
I am sick with the flu and can't join today's call, but would like to echo John's concern about Kathy's proposed language in #4 below. Let's try and strike a balance with measured language that isn't fear-mongering.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who's having some problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our discussions, Kathy!
Cheers Mary
All, I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary:
1. 1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes place over time.
2. 1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests "What should be the minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an electronic communication.
3. 1.3.2 Following the section on "In addition, the WG is considering the following language for request by intellectual property owners or their representatives..." **[add] The WG is also trying to determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or otherwise a misuse or abuse of the "reveal" process. An example discussed in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider's notice of disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where the Customer is actually the "senior" (prior) trademark user or "original" copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its legal system allows such challenges.
4. 1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third paragraph before the sentence: "The community is invited to provide input..." and include==> Many members of the WG expressed concern that many noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs, bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more horrific consequences.
I think the background on all sides will help commenters... Best, Kathy
_____________________________________________________________________________
<image001.png> Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman@fhhlaw.com<mailto:kleiman@fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com< http://www.fhhlaw.com/> |www.commlawblog.com<http://www.commlawblog.com/>
<image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Baney, Libby -
John Horton -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Prosser, Susan -
Victoria Sheckler