Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Volker Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . . M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability. Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikof f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ] So providers should be permitted to take that view. --Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikof f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Hi Wendy, I hope we will not have to go into another waiver process to allow providers to comply with local law or worse, local liability risks. See how well that is working out for registrars with the data retention spec... I think allowing a provider to offer such a service is fine, but requiring such a service is not... Volker
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . . That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikof f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- 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.
like she said. If ICANN has put something into its terms and conditions that makes the provider responsible for the content of customers, maybe it is something we should revisit. Again, we should analyze and quantify our risks here, so we know how serious the crimes might be, how often the domain name registry is the only place to get ID of the perps, and what percentage are actually prosecuted. Stephanie On 2014-02-05, at 10:19 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikof f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story. My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there. I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs. Kind regards, Gema -----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ] So providers should be permitted to take that view. --Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Hi Gema, your initial point is well taken. The bad will always try to use the mechanisms designed to protect the good. To your last point though, let's try not to bring hosting into this, as that is an entirely different can of worms. Volker Am 06.02.2014 11:26, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . . That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-- 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 Gema, I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity. --bob On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria:
Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate... Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: > Dear Group, > > I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you > have the result. > > Best regards, > > Gema Campillos > > Deputy Director of Information Society Services > > Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society > > SPAIN > > *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary > Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 > *Para:* > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, Jim and everyone, > > One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's > Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating > to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are > or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The > WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain > questions/categories need to be addressed before others. > > Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed > timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's > suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of > other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO > WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is > likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the > WG (or > sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. > Main > Issues) may be more organic than others. > > Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to > consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across > the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across > various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are > due in short order!). > > I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of > Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document > which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the > call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple > of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two > sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. > > 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> > <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > * One World. One Internet. * > > *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org > <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM > *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko > f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" > > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. > org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> > *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Jim, > > Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am > very > anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve > mine for > now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is > inducing cold sweats already. :) > > I will note up front though that apart from process > considerations, staff support availability will have to be > part of > our work plan decisions. > > Best, > > Don > > *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> > *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM > *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org > <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, > > As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's > efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, > based > on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. > > Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following > suggested Work Plan: > > 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey > responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group > members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. > > 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the > terminology > and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify > consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus > Call on > these issues. > > 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by > group: (a) > Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) > Reveal; > (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current > groupings > of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" > categories. We propose adding these categories, which would > include questions taken out of other current categories, as > identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the > remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching > category, would be addressed organically as a result of this > proposed process. > > a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to > Don by > each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be > combined by > staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the > upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. > > b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other > constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the > Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the > constituencies' and > Working Group's responses (including majority and minority > views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by > Friday or > Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one > document, such > as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. > > 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final > Excel file > of responses to survey accordingly. > > 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); > (2) > Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority > Views > w/Levels of Support. > > 6. Present Report for Public Comment. > > This process will provide a means to circle back to the > remaining > Main Issues questions. > > Regards, > > Jim > > James L. Bikoff > > Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP > > 1101 30th Street, NW > > Suite 120 > > Washington, DC 20007 > > Tel: 202-944-3303 > > Fax: 202-944-3306 > > jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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.
+1 Volker Roy From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 8:56 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate... Volker I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity. --bob On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote: How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story. My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there. I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs. Kind regards, Gema -----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . . That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ] So providers should be permitted to take that view. --Wendy M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- 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 Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability. Volker Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group, As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message... I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint. --Wendy Regards, Gema -----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com><mailto:wendy@seltzer.com><mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema, One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration- So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate. I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all. --Wendy Volker Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group, I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result. Best regards, Gema Campillos Deputy Director of Information Society Services Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society SPAIN *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* 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> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, Jim and everyone, One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others. Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others. Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!). I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. 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><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org><mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com<mailto:f@sgbdc.com>>>>, "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><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto: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> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan Jim, Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :) I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions. Best, Don *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com><mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org><mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <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>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan Dear Don, As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan: 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues. 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process. a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly. 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support. 6. Present Report for Public Comment. This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions. Regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com><mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com><mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com><mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org><mailto:wendy@seltzer.org><mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 -- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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 Volker, Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we have police departments to enforce public safety. Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority, whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted. -bob On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate...
Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi Bob, I do not dispute that. If regulation is necessary to ensure safety, then by all means... However such regulations need to be balanced, closely tailored and - first and foremost - effective with regard to the goal they are supposed to address. Not some non-effective feel-good policy like the RAA address verification... (all that does is lead to more identity theft) BTW: Our affiliated service does not provide this service, and for good reason. I just do not want to dictate what others can or cannot do.
Hi Volker,
Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we have police departments to enforce public safety.
Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority, whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted.
-bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate...
Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@
icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process
considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org
<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a)
Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other
constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2)
Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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.
Bob: Without speaking for other service providers, there are currently ~4 million subscribers to our affiliated privacy service. Just under half of those indicate that they are a corporation or business. We employ a team of full-time employees working continuously to detect and terminate bad actors, and their estimates indicate the rate of abuse on our services is less than 1% of all domains. But even allowing for the hypothetical possibility that, at any given moment, there are bad actors have not yet been exposed, then we could generously allow that the true rate of abuse is double that amount, or 2% of all domains. Unless you have some factual basis for your claim that the legitimate users are in the minority (meaning our service is harboring over 2 million criminals and 1 million criminal organizations), then I recommend you walk back some of that rhetoric. You and your organization are focused on the bad actors operating on the Internet. This is a noble cause, but it has skewed your perspective on the actual scope of criminal/absuive users. Thanks‹ J. On 2/6/14, 8:28 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we have police departments to enforce public safety.
Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority, whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted.
-bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate...
Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From:
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org>
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
<wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann;
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:*
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com
<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%2 0<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.
org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process
considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com
<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbd c.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org
<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a)
Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other
constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2)
Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer --
wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi James, I am affiliated with KnujOn, which has been working for almost a decade collecting spam from thousands of people every day. It gets processed to pull out the land/tranasction sites (not the apparent source). The whois record for these sites are checked for accuracy and a complaint gets filed based on the result. Moreover, we work with places like Host Exploit, which covers ASNs in a quarterly report in categories like malware and spam. We have been dealing with p/p issue for years. None of this hypothetical, feel-good or anything like that. KnujOn has put out studies, but my reference to "practical experience" is not a reference to studies. If Godaddy is willing to take the bulk complaints and deal with them honestly, please let me know. We will be happy to work with you and any registrar to close down bad actors. We would also be happy to work with you complaint system automation. I am not saying that there are millions of criminal organizations, but I *know* that those organizations which exist register millions of domain names. Registrars accept bulk registration, but not bulk complaints. The fact that you only see an abuse rate of 1% should be a clue. Godaddy gets a break in reporting by groups like us, because it has so many domains, so the percentage can be low, but the absolute number can be high. One of the previous studies showed that if simply verifying email address formats (not the actual address) a large majority of bad actor registrations would have been rejected. I am not interested in responding to attacks on my credibility, but it appears I have to. I am not making up this stuff. We have years worth of data to support everything I have said. If you have a real interest in this, please communicate with me off line. I would rather deal with the actual debate. As far as legitmate users being in the minority, one quick stat is that spam is about 80% of all email. So this is not rhetoric. --bob On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Bob:
Without speaking for other service providers, there are currently ~4 million subscribers to our affiliated privacy service. Just under half of those indicate that they are a corporation or business. We employ a team of full-time employees working continuously to detect and terminate bad actors, and their estimates indicate the rate of abuse on our services is less than 1% of all domains.
But even allowing for the hypothetical possibility that, at any given moment, there are bad actors have not yet been exposed, then we could generously allow that the true rate of abuse is double that amount, or 2% of all domains.
Unless you have some factual basis for your claim that the legitimate users are in the minority (meaning our service is harboring over 2 million criminals and 1 million criminal organizations), then I recommend you walk back some of that rhetoric.
You and your organization are focused on the bad actors operating on the Internet. This is a noble cause, but it has skewed your perspective on the actual scope of criminal/absuive users.
Thanks‹
J.
On 2/6/14, 8:28 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we have police departments to enforce public safety.
Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority, whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted.
-bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate...
Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From:
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org>
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
<wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann;
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:*
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com
<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%2 0<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.
org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process
considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com
<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbd c.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org
<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a)
Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other
constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2)
Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer --
wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi Bob. I’m very familiar with KnuJon and, as I said previously, admire the stance you have taken against spam. It is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Internet when private citizens can self-organize to address a problem. A few notes on the points raised in your message: --We are well aware that there is not a 1:1 relationship between bad actors and abusive domains. And a single abusive domain can be used to send millions of spam messages. Which is why our team will investigate all domains in a given account once a single instance of abuse is confirmed. --The last sentence of your message is confusing, as it seems to imply that because the majority of email messages are spam, that means the majority of users (email users? Or domain registrants? Or proxy customers?) must therefore also be spammers. I don’t follow the logic on this, and in fact the rest of your message seems to refute this as well. --On another note, our abuse rate is actually less than a tenth of a percentage point, but I was rounding up to 1% for ease of discussion. This is one of the challenges of dealing with Internet policy issues involving very large numbers. Similarly, it is the same story for bulk reporting tools, which often become abuse of a different sort. These systems are often used to harass service providers or people/organizations with large portfolios of domain names, and the quality of the submissions drops dramatically. But thanks again for your work, and offer to help. And while your firm undoubtedly provides a valuable service for smaller providers, I’m confident our internal capabilities are more suited for the scale of abuse we are encountering in the wild. Thanks— J. On 2/6/14, 9:42 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi James,
I am affiliated with KnujOn, which has been working for almost a decade collecting spam from thousands of people every day. It gets processed to pull out the land/tranasction sites (not the apparent source). The whois record for these sites are checked for accuracy and a complaint gets filed based on the result.
Moreover, we work with places like Host Exploit, which covers ASNs in a quarterly report in categories like malware and spam.
We have been dealing with p/p issue for years. None of this hypothetical, feel-good or anything like that. KnujOn has put out studies, but my reference to "practical experience" is not a reference to studies.
If Godaddy is willing to take the bulk complaints and deal with them honestly, please let me know. We will be happy to work with you and any registrar to close down bad actors. We would also be happy to work with you complaint system automation.
I am not saying that there are millions of criminal organizations, but I *know* that those organizations which exist register millions of domain names. Registrars accept bulk registration, but not bulk complaints.
The fact that you only see an abuse rate of 1% should be a clue. Godaddy gets a break in reporting by groups like us, because it has so many domains, so the percentage can be low, but the absolute number can be high.
One of the previous studies showed that if simply verifying email address formats (not the actual address) a large majority of bad actor registrations would have been rejected.
I am not interested in responding to attacks on my credibility, but it appears I have to. I am not making up this stuff. We have years worth of data to support everything I have said.
If you have a real interest in this, please communicate with me off line. I would rather deal with the actual debate.
As far as legitmate users being in the minority, one quick stat is that spam is about 80% of all email. So this is not rhetoric.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Bob:
Without speaking for other service providers, there are currently ~4 million subscribers to our affiliated privacy service. Just under half of those indicate that they are a corporation or business. We employ a team of full-time employees working continuously to detect and terminate bad actors, and their estimates indicate the rate of abuse on our services is less than 1% of all domains.
But even allowing for the hypothetical possibility that, at any given moment, there are bad actors have not yet been exposed, then we could generously allow that the true rate of abuse is double that amount, or 2% of all domains.
Unless you have some factual basis for your claim that the legitimate users are in the minority (meaning our service is harboring over 2 million criminals and 1 million criminal organizations), then I recommend you walk back some of that rhetoric.
You and your organization are focused on the bad actors operating on the Internet. This is a noble cause, but it has skewed your perspective on the actual scope of criminal/absuive users.
Thanks‹
J.
On 2/6/14, 8:28 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we have police departments to enforce public safety.
Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority, whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted.
-bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate...
Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From:
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org>
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
<wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann;
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:*
gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org
<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com
<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org %2 0<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.
org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process
considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com
<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sg bd c.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org
<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a)
Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other
constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2)
Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer --
wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Bob, You know the response on this. We've talked about it many times. This is a speech/free expression/communication issue. There is no legal obligation in the marketplace of ideas to wave a flag and tell people where you are located when you are sharing minority speech, dissenting speech, unpopular speech or even speech critical of a product, service or company. There is no license for speech and expression. Further, an entire GNSO study set out to prove exactly what you have submitted below/. /The National Physical Laboratory in its Study of Whois Privacy and Proxy Service Abuse set out to test the thesis that: /"A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet// //activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity"./ /They couldn't do it! /They found that a significant percentage of legal activities and business, /including banks, /use proxy privacy services. Further, the Carnegie Mellon Study - confusingly called The Study on Whois Misuse - found us that a lot of legitimate domain name registrants ARE in danger because there IS "a statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers, published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs. Overall, we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types of WHOIS misuse." So let's not generalize anymore. We have findings. Further, we have a proven market of proxy/privacy services that responded to a legitimate, good faith need of organizations, individuals, and yes, businesses for proxy/privacy registrations. The Whois Review Team found that all three groups of registrants claimed legitimate use of them. Overall, we're not the bad guys - we're just domain name registrants and proxy/privacy customers. Best, Kathy
Hi Volker,
Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we have police departments to enforce public safety.
Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority, whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted.
-bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should or shouldn't be available for those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that: legitimate...
Volker
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan.
I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider.
If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: Dear Group,
I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you have the result.
Best regards,
Gema Campillos
Deputy Director of Information Society Services
Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society
SPAIN
*De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 *Para:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).
I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
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> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
*From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@
icann.org>>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Jim,
Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
I will note up front though that apart from process
considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
Best,
Don
*From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org
<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan
Dear Don,
As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:
1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.
2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a)
Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.
b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other
constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.
5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2)
Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.
6. Present Report for Public Comment.
This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.
Regards,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kathy, Okay, if you want to go down this path... --bob On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Bob, You know the response on this. We've talked about it many times. This is a speech/free expression/communication issue. There is no legal obligation in the marketplace of ideas to wave a flag and tell people where you are located when you are sharing minority speech, dissenting speech, unpopular speech or even speech critical of a product, service or company. There is no license for speech and expression.
I am much stronger believer in free speech than you seem to ackowledge :) This is not a free speech issue. This is an issue concenerning ICANN accredited registrars, who have the license to sell domain names. The domain name holders have some rights to anonimity and privacy, but there is also the existing requirement of the RAA to have way to contact the registrant. It is an issue of making money, however. I have put my own limits on what I include in my list of whom this concerns, for example, not ccTLDs and not individuals, except those taking in money for what they sell. This leads us to other issues, of course. The "wave a flag" is hyberbolic. Just because you can be found, does not mean you waved a flag. This is also not so much about legalities in the marketplace of ideas. It's about domain name holders, both good and bad intentioned.
Further, an entire GNSO study set out to prove exactly what you have submitted below. The National Physical Laboratory in its Study of Whois Privacy and Proxy Service Abuse set out to test the thesis that: "A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity".
They couldn't do it! They found that a significant percentage of legal activities and business, including banks, use proxy privacy services.
Just because a legitimate service is used by legitimate people, you cannot conclude that all users are legitimate. The folks who did that study did not contact KnujOn for input, otherwise we would have helped them out. And, since it was not 100%, then they also found there were abuses.
Further, the Carnegie Mellon Study - confusingly called The Study on Whois Misuse - found us that a lot of legitimate domain name registrants ARE in danger because there IS "a statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting Registrants’ email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers, published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs. Overall, we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types of WHOIS misuse."
Sorry you brought this up. This study seemed to be more of a student project, rather than a professional job - and I am not the only one who saw that. The authors were clueless about the topic.
So let's not generalize anymore. We have findings. Further, we have a proven market of proxy/privacy services that responded to a legitimate, good faith need of organizations, individuals, and yes, businesses for proxy/privacy registrations. The Whois Review Team found that all three groups of registrants claimed legitimate use of them.
Unfortunately, you do not have findings. For example, in 2008 at the ICANN meeting in Brussels, a study of ICANN's released some data, which supported much of what KnujOn had been saying. The head of compliance tried to do something about it and was fired. Please don't make me list a bunch of services one can get paid for because there is a marketplace for it, the ones that are not allowed by civilized societies. Just because there is a market, does not mean it should be filled. Yes, I know there are legitimate uses of p/p but I also know (not guessing) there already exists a large abuse of it. And yes, I could get a list of such domains.
Overall, we're not the bad guys - we're just domain name registrants and proxy/privacy customers.
Never said you were the bad guys, just that other people who are bad guys are using these services to hide out and I don't want them protected.
Best, Kathy
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi Bob,
I am much stronger believer in free speech than you seem to ackowledge :)
This is not a free speech issue. This is an issue concenerning ICANN accredited registrars, who have the license to sell domain names. The domain name holders have some rights to anonimity and privacy, but there is also the existing requirement of the RAA to have way to contact the registrant. It is an issue of making money, however. I agree that there must be a method of contacting the registrant. However there is no right of ever receiving a response from the registrant. The registrant has the right to ignore you if he so choses.
So if a privacy service provider provides an encoded email address that forwards to the registrant, or will relay all communications sent by mail to the registrant, you essentially have what you are asking for: a way of contacting the registrant. I am all for locking this down as an obligation for service providers.
I have put my own limits on what I include in my list of whom this concerns, for example, not ccTLDs and not individuals, except those taking in money for what they sell. This leads us to other issues, of course. We need to tread carefully here though. Many times courts have ruled the provision of ads for money on otherwise non-commercial blogs to be sufficient for assuming commercial use, so it does not mean that the registrant is selling something.
Just because a legitimate service is used by legitimate people, you cannot conclude that all users are legitimate. The folks who did that study did not contact KnujOn for input, otherwise we would have helped them out. And, since it was not 100%, then they also found there were abuses. The opposite applies as well. Just because a legitimate service is used by illegitimate people, you cannot conclude that all users are illegitimate. And do not take me wrong, but not contacting your private project does not invalidate a study in my book.
There will always be abuse, no matter how much you regluate a service. Unless you want a 100% controlled big-brother state, you will not be able to eliminate abuse, and even then...
Sorry you brought this up. This study seemed to be more of a student project, rather than a professional job I am not commenting on this one...
Unfortunately, you do not have findings. For example, in 2008 at the ICANN meeting in Brussels, a study of ICANN's released some data, which supported much of what KnujOn had been saying. The head of compliance tried to do something about it and was fired. I am sure there were other causes for this... Please don't make me list a bunch of services one can get paid for because there is a marketplace for it, the ones that are not allowed by civilized societies. Just because there is a market, does not mean it should be filled. I tend to agree, but on the other hand, I am very wary of trying to impose my morals upon others and others that try to do the same. Morals are man-made and may shift over time, and so may the legality of certain issues.
Yes, I know there are legitimate uses of p/p but I also know (not guessing) there already exists a large abuse of it. And yes, I could get a list of such domains. Just be sure to pass them on to the service providers so they can do something about it, but remember, that just because you classify something as abuse, it may not be abuse to everyone.
Volker
I agree with Gema and Bob. Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com Sent from my iPad
On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:22 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Gema,
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: > Dear Group, > > I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you > have the result. > > Best regards, > > Gema Campillos > > Deputy Director of Information Society Services > > Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society > > SPAIN > > *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary > Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 > *Para:* > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, Jim and everyone, > > One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's > Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating > to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are > or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The > WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain > questions/categories need to be addressed before others. > > Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed > timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's > suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of > other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO > WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is > likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the > WG (or > sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. > Main > Issues) may be more organic than others. > > Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to > consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across > the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across > various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are > due in short order!). > > I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of > Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document > which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the > call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple > of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two > sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. > > 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> > <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > * One World. One Internet. * > > *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org > <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM > *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko > f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. > org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> > *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Jim, > > Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very > anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for > now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is > inducing cold sweats already. :) > > I will note up front though that apart from process > considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of > our work plan decisions. > > Best, > > Don > > *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> > *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM > *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org > <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, > > As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's > efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based > on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. > > Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following > suggested Work Plan: > > 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey > responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group > members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. > > 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology > and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify > consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on > these issues. > > 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) > Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; > (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings > of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" > categories. We propose adding these categories, which would > include questions taken out of other current categories, as > identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the > remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching > category, would be addressed organically as a result of this > proposed process. > > a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by > each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by > staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the > upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. > > b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other > constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the > Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and > Working Group's responses (including majority and minority > views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or > Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such > as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. > > 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file > of responses to survey accordingly. > > 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) > Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views > w/Levels of Support. > > 6. Present Report for Public Comment. > > This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining > Main Issues questions. > > Regards, > > Jim > > James L. Bikoff > > Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP > > 1101 30th Street, NW > > Suite 120 > > Washington, DC 20007 > > Tel: 202-944-3303 > > Fax: 202-944-3306 > > jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I would be interested in seeing data that substantiates Bob's claim. J.
On Feb 6, 2014, at 6:22, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Gema,
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Gema,
One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less influence over the registration-
So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with the registrar/reseller/registrant. In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
Volker
Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: > Dear Group, > > I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you > have the result. > > Best regards, > > Gema Campillos > > Deputy Director of Information Society Services > > Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society > > SPAIN > > *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary > Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 > *Para:* > gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, Jim and everyone, > > One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's > Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating > to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are > or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The > WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain > questions/categories need to be addressed before others. > > Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed > timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's > suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of > other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO > WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is > likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the > WG (or > sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. > Main > Issues) may be more organic than others. > > Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to > consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across > the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across > various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are > due in short order!). > > I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of > Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document > which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the > call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple > of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two > sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. > > 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> > <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > * One World. One Internet. * > > *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org > <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM > *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko > f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. > org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> > *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan > > Jim, > > Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very > anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for > now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is > inducing cold sweats already. :) > > I will note up front though that apart from process > considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of > our work plan decisions. > > Best, > > Don > > *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> > *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM > *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org > <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan > > Dear Don, > > As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's > efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based > on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. > > Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following > suggested Work Plan: > > 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey > responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group > members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. > > 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology > and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify > consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on > these issues. > > 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) > Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; > (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings > of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" > categories. We propose adding these categories, which would > include questions taken out of other current categories, as > identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the > remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching > category, would be addressed organically as a result of this > proposed process. > > a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by > each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by > staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the > upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. > > b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other > constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the > Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and > Working Group's responses (including majority and minority > views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or > Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such > as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. > > 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file > of responses to survey accordingly. > > 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) > Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views > w/Levels of Support. > > 6. Present Report for Public Comment. > > This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining > Main Issues questions. > > Regards, > > Jim > > James L. Bikoff > > Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP > > 1101 30th Street, NW > > Suite 120 > > Washington, DC 20007 > > Tel: 202-944-3303 > > Fax: 202-944-3306 > > jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
And I would be even more interested in knowing what methodology was used to conduct these studies. (my money is on a syllogistic one) Luc On Feb 6, 2014, at 15:43, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
I would be interested in seeing data that substantiates Bob's claim.
J.
On Feb 6, 2014, at 6:22, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Gema,
I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical experience, the bad actors far outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
--bob
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that option (reveal or abandon), it will attract political dissidents, persecuted religious minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that it is luring into the service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR pirate sites, illegal gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and the like. I´m not so sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to unlawful activity. But´s that another story.
My point is that the mere possibility of offering that option damps the ability of public authorities to protect public interests and could be against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider should only process requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction, requests aimed at dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and hosting services are acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service. So, the business thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
Kind regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19 Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Volker
Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of when we discussed this in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be enough to protect you as a provider .. and forcing all providers into that kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that under US law, there's no liability on a provider of domain registry services who does not encourage or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long discussion of secondary liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the legal absurdity of 3.7.7.3 ]
So providers should be permitted to take that view.
--Wendy
M -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
While I understand this concern from a privacy standpoint, as a service provider this is problematic as one needs to be able to point to the responsible party in case of legal violations in order to avoid culpability and liability.
Volker
Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s message...
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
I have deep concerns with offering such a service. If the P&P service receives a request to reveal the identity and contact data of the registrant, I doubt it can refuse to relay them on account of the de-registration of the domain name (which should be done through the registrar). If the request comes from an individual or organization holding a legitimate interest, there may be situations in which they would still be entitled to get those data (I´m thinking of a prospective file suit or extrajudicial request for redress). But, let us discuss thoroughly at the appropriate time in the Work Plan. I believe it should be legitimate to offer a service that has no possibility of identifying the registrant. Instead, it has other accountability, namely that the domain name stops resolving upon receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the tradeoff I propose, that there be some situations in which it is by design impossible to get the identification of the registrant, but it's also impossible to keep the name in the face of a complaint.
--Wendy
Regards,
Gema
-----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Tim Ruiz Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 16:58 Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was captured in our call today. ________________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces @ icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
> On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: > Hi Gema, > > One note to Main issue 3 as it is proposed: This assumes that the > provider has that kind of access or ability. In many cases, the > privacy service just allows for the provision of its data and acts > as a forwarding service. In the case of the provider affiliated > with us, the provider has one ability only: Request the removal of > its data from the whois. Other privacy services may have even less > influence over the > registration- > > So requiring a takedown or disabling/terminating the registrants' > access may not be something that a privacy or proxy service > provider is set up to do, depending on how he is integrated with > the registrar/reseller/registrant. > In the past we have always talked about relay and reveal. These are > the main opptions every provider should have in my opinion. > Anything beyond that may not be feasible and may not even be in the remit of the provider. If we're considering what should be required of services under a new proposed accreditation regime, then we should be prepared to think of what the system should have, not just what it can currently accommodate.
I've proposed that registrants be offered the choice between potential reveal and potential termination of registration (that choice could be offered up-front at the time of registration, or at the time of the identification request). For some registrants, such as legitimate whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear of retaliation is more important than the persistence of their domain identifier, this choice may be important. I hope we're at least leaving the opportunity for a compliant service to offer an "unidentified de-registration" option, even though we don't need to mandate it for all.
--Wendy
> Volker > > Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria: >> Dear Group, >> >> I have worked on the PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping and here you >> have the result. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Gema Campillos >> >> Deputy Director of Information Society Services >> >> Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society >> >> SPAIN >> >> *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Mary >> Wong *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de enero de 2014 16:57 >> *Para:* >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> *Asunto:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >> >> Dear Don, Jim and everyone, >> >> One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's >> Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating >> to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are >> or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The >> WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain >> questions/categories need to be addressed before others. >> >> Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed >> timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's >> suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of >> other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO >> WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is >> likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the >> WG (or >> sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. >> Main >> Issues) may be more organic than others. >> >> Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to >> consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across >> the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across >> various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are >> due in short order!). >> >> I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of >> Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document >> which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the >> call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple >> of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two >> sub-questions that Kathy had asked about. >> >> 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> >> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> >> * One World. One Internet. * >> >> *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org >> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> >> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM >> *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com >> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko >> f f@sgbdc.com>>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>" >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann. >> org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> >> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan >> >> Jim, >> >> Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very >> anxious to see the group's thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for >> now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is >> inducing cold sweats already. :) >> >> I will note up front though that apart from process >> considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of >> our work plan decisions. >> >> Best, >> >> Don >> >> *From: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>> >> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM >> *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org >> <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> *Subject: *PPSAI Work Plan >> >> Dear Don, >> >> As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's >> efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based >> on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group. >> >> Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following >> suggested Work Plan: >> >> 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey >> responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group >> members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff. >> >> 2.Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology >> and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify >> consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on >> these issues. >> >> 3.Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) >> Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; >> (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings >> of questions do not include "Publication" or "Termination" >> categories. We propose adding these categories, which would >> include questions taken out of other current categories, as >> identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the >> remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching >> category, would be addressed organically as a result of this >> proposed process. >> >> a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by >> each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by >> staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the >> upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference. >> >> b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other >> constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the >> Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and >> Working Group's responses (including majority and minority >> views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or >> Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such >> as an Excel file, for full Working Group review. >> >> 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file >> of responses to survey accordingly. >> >> 5.Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) >> Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views >> w/Levels of Support. >> >> 6. Present Report for Public Comment. >> >> This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining >> Main Issues questions. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jim >> >> James L. Bikoff >> >> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP >> >> 1101 30th Street, NW >> >> Suite 120 >> >> Washington, DC 20007 >> >> Tel: 202-944-3303 >> >> Fax: 202-944-3306 >> >> jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> >> <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ 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
________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------
participants (11)
-
Balleste, Roy -
Bob Bruen -
Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria -
James M. Bladel -
Jim Bikoff -
Kathy Kleiman -
Luc SEUFER -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Stephanie Perrin -
Volker Greimann -
Wendy Seltzer