Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Hi Phil I agree - it IS about assurance - as long as that assurance in credible. Sorry if I misled everyone Holly On 31 Mar 2015, at 1:18 pm, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
With respect to --
Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics.
Sorry if this is harsh, but I made no argument and if you perceived one that was your misreading of what I wrote.
I was raising questions. I am not dismissing the concerns raised by Kathy and seconded by you and others. I was questioning whether requiring that the request be signed by an individual at a certain level of authority would effectively address it.
It seems to me that this discussion is less about the credentials of the requestor but some assurance that the process leading to the request met a minimum standard, and that some attestation by the requestor that a certain amount of due diligence has preceded the request might be a more effective approach.
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: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Hi Phil
And that is our concern. If someone is signing off on notices by the 'hundreds per day', then it will be difficult to accept that much thought has been given to any particular notice. And we are talking about revealing information that, for whatever reason, that person/company values enough to go to the trouble of using a p/p provider. As the Whois Report acknowledged, there are quite legitimate uses of P/P services - which, under privacy protections, people are entitled to use.
I am not an expert on costs of rights holders. But I am not terribly comfortable with accepting that it is okay to reveal private personal information when the threshold test is based on a computer program or the trainee in the company. Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics.
It's not my starting point. My starting point is the right to privacy unless good reason can be established.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:22 pm, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
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
----- 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
I'm sorry I won't be on the call today. Please note we believe we do provide a level of assurance and diligence with our notices generally, and tried to fashion the requirements here in the document to reflect that. Typically we do not have lawyers send out notices, but rather ppl from team trained to investigate and detect infringement. Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Phil I agree - it IS about assurance - as long as that assurance in credible. Sorry if I misled everyone
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 1:18 pm, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
With respect to --
Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics.
Sorry if this is harsh, but I made no argument and if you perceived one that was your misreading of what I wrote.
I was raising questions. I am not dismissing the concerns raised by Kathy and seconded by you and others. I was questioning whether requiring that the request be signed by an individual at a certain level of authority would effectively address it.
It seems to me that this discussion is less about the credentials of the requestor but some assurance that the process leading to the request met a minimum standard, and that some attestation by the requestor that a certain amount of due diligence has preceded the request might be a more effective approach.
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: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Hi Phil
And that is our concern. If someone is signing off on notices by the 'hundreds per day', then it will be difficult to accept that much thought has been given to any particular notice. And we are talking about revealing information that, for whatever reason, that person/company values enough to go to the trouble of using a p/p provider. As the Whois Report acknowledged, there are quite legitimate uses of P/P services - which, under privacy protections, people are entitled to use.
I am not an expert on costs of rights holders. But I am not terribly comfortable with accepting that it is okay to reveal private personal information when the threshold test is based on a computer program or the trainee in the company. Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics.
It's not my starting point. My starting point is the right to privacy unless good reason can be established.
Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:22 pm, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
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
----- 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
participants (2)
-
Holly Raiche -
Victoria Sheckler