Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks! From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com> <mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> , "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> , "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> <mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy : > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for > forwarding with enough time to review before the call! > > We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I > am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the > level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why > that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information > to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark > owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in > the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, > as the previous language did. > > Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the > group before the call. > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415.222.8318 (t) > 415.419.9138 (m) > www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy > Kleiman > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM > To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc > > Hi All, > Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised > Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types > of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent > research: > > 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, > the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct > knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to > represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending > discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this > section) > > All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of > high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is > also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the > Request) including > a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider > challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's > information? > > Best and have a good rest of weekend, > Kathy --
Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai -pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai -pdp-wg
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations. Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks! From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Stephanie and everyone, Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language: "If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community." We hope this is helpful. 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> -----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Kathy, Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us. I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be. Thanks Graeme On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion! Best, Kathy : Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made. I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se"). Best, Kathy : Hi Kathy, Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call! We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did. Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work. John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call? Best, Kathy :
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
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>
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kathy and everyone, While all WG calls are recorded and transcribed, calls are generally understood to be meetings and discussions among WG members unless, as noted, experts and other contributors are invited to participate live and in real time. WG participants, to the extent they represent SG/C/SO/ACs and other groups, are therefore expected to communicate, update and represent views and positions to and from those groups, including WG decisions and requests. As you know, input is also sought from the rest of the community on a periodic basis. In this case, the WG chairs have indicated that it may be better for the WG as a whole, with sufficient notice, to determine whether and when John (and for that matter any other non-WG member) should be asked to join a call and/or provide input. This is borne out by the WG Guidelines so perhaps can be a question for the WG to take up as part of the discussion on next steps on the call in about 12 hours' time. Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 20:49, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work. John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call?
Best, Kathy :
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
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>
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org 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
I am really confused. When Richard Leaning joined the group as a law enforcement representative, we asked for a representative of the data protection community, just for balance. I provided suggested names. We never heard back....delighted to have Dick with us now as a group member, but is it open to me to invite a data protection authority to join the group? There are a great many attorneys here on the requestor side of this discussion, how many represent clients on the other side? If Mr Berryhill, (who I do not know but whose Interventions I have encountered in my research) chose to join the group would he be accepted? These are just my naive questions. Thanks. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-23 22:37, Mary Wong wrote:
Hi Kathy and everyone,
While all WG calls are recorded and transcribed, calls are generally understood to be meetings and discussions among WG members unless, as noted, experts and other contributors are invited to participate live and in real time. WG participants, to the extent they represent SG/C/SO/ACs and other groups, are therefore expected to communicate, update and represent views and positions to and from those groups, including WG decisions and requests. As you know, input is also sought from the rest of the community on a periodic basis.
In this case, the WG chairs have indicated that it may be better for the WG as a whole, with sufficient notice, to determine whether and when John (and for that matter any other non-WG member) should be asked to join a call and/or provide input. This is borne out by the WG Guidelines so perhaps can be a question for the WG to take up as part of the discussion on next steps on the call in about 12 hours' time.
Cheers Mary
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 20:49, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work. John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call?
Best, Kathy :
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
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>
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org 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 again - sorry for not being clear; a WG is open for anyone to join at any time, as Mr Leaning and others have done. All they need to do is let the Secretariat know and fill in an SOI. Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 23:02, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I am really confused. When Richard Leaning joined the group as a law enforcement representative, we asked for a representative of the data protection community, just for balance. I provided suggested names. We never heard back....delighted to have Dick with us now as a group member, but is it open to me to invite a data protection authority to join the group? There are a great many attorneys here on the requestor side of this discussion, how many represent clients on the other side? If Mr Berryhill, (who I do not know but whose Interventions I have encountered in my research) chose to join the group would he be accepted?
These are just my naive questions. Thanks. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-03-23 22:37, Mary Wong wrote: Hi Kathy and everyone,
While all WG calls are recorded and transcribed, calls are generally understood to be meetings and discussions among WG members unless, as noted, experts and other contributors are invited to participate live and in real time. WG participants, to the extent they represent SG/C/SO/ACs and other groups, are therefore expected to communicate, update and represent views and positions to and from those groups, including WG decisions and requests. As you know, input is also sought from the rest of the community on a periodic basis.
In this case, the WG chairs have indicated that it may be better for the WG as a whole, with sufficient notice, to determine whether and when John (and for that matter any other non-WG member) should be asked to join a call and/or provide input. This is borne out by the WG Guidelines so perhaps can be a question for the WG to take up as part of the discussion on next steps on the call in about 12 hours' time.
Cheers Mary
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 20:49, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work. John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call?
Best, Kathy :
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
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>
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks! Now all we have to do is talk these folks into making the time commitment....:-) SP On 2015-03-23 23:07, Mary Wong wrote:
Hi again - sorry for not being clear; a WG is open for anyone to join at any time, as Mr Leaning and others have done. All they need to do is let the Secretariat know and fill in an SOI.
Cheers Mary
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 23:02, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I am really confused. When Richard Leaning joined the group as a law enforcement representative, we asked for a representative of the data protection community, just for balance. I provided suggested names. We never heard back....delighted to have Dick with us now as a group member, but is it open to me to invite a data protection authority to join the group? There are a great many attorneys here on the requestor side of this discussion, how many represent clients on the other side? If Mr Berryhill, (who I do not know but whose Interventions I have encountered in my research) chose to join the group would he be accepted?
These are just my naive questions. Thanks. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-03-23 22:37, Mary Wong wrote: Hi Kathy and everyone,
While all WG calls are recorded and transcribed, calls are generally understood to be meetings and discussions among WG members unless, as noted, experts and other contributors are invited to participate live and in real time. WG participants, to the extent they represent SG/C/SO/ACs and other groups, are therefore expected to communicate, update and represent views and positions to and from those groups, including WG decisions and requests. As you know, input is also sought from the rest of the community on a periodic basis.
In this case, the WG chairs have indicated that it may be better for the WG as a whole, with sufficient notice, to determine whether and when John (and for that matter any other non-WG member) should be asked to join a call and/or provide input. This is borne out by the WG Guidelines so perhaps can be a question for the WG to take up as part of the discussion on next steps on the call in about 12 hours' time.
Cheers Mary
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 20:49, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work. John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call?
Best, Kathy :
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
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>
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org 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
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Stephanie, I think (one of) the difference(s) is that John has been invited by one person to weigh in on one detail of one document related to one issue. Dick was invited to participate as a whole, which he does on behalf of the ICANN LE community, reporting back to them, etc. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I am really confused. When Richard Leaning joined the group as a law enforcement representative, we asked for a representative of the data protection community, just for balance. I provided suggested names. We never heard back....delighted to have Dick with us now as a group member, but is it open to me to invite a data protection authority to join the group? There are a great many attorneys here on the requestor side of this discussion, how many represent clients on the other side? If Mr Berryhill, (who I do not know but whose Interventions I have encountered in my research) chose to join the group would he be accepted?
These are just my naive questions. Thanks. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-03-23 22:37, Mary Wong wrote: Hi Kathy and everyone,
While all WG calls are recorded and transcribed, calls are generally understood to be meetings and discussions among WG members unless, as noted, experts and other contributors are invited to participate live and in real time. WG participants, to the extent they represent SG/C/SO/ACs and other groups, are therefore expected to communicate, update and represent views and positions to and from those groups, including WG decisions and requests. As you know, input is also sought from the rest of the community on a periodic basis.
In this case, the WG chairs have indicated that it may be better for the WG as a whole, with sufficient notice, to determine whether and when John (and for that matter any other non-WG member) should be asked to join a call and/or provide input. This is borne out by the WG Guidelines so perhaps can be a question for the WG to take up as part of the discussion on next steps on the call in about 12 hours' time.
Cheers Mary
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2015, at 20:49, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work. John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call?
Best, Kathy :
While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Stephanie and everyone,
Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language:
"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."
We hope this is helpful.
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>
-----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
Thanks
Graeme
On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
Best, Kathy
:
Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made.
I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").
Best, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I think the point of the guidelines is that it is up to the WG as a whole, not an individual member acting a few hours before a scheduled meeting, to invite non-members to a meeting to provide input. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:28 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks! From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Stephanie and everyone, Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from "self formed groups and/or individuals" on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not? cheers Stephanie On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following language: "If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community." We hope this is helpful. 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> -----Original Message----- From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com><mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com><mailto:met@msk.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi Kathy, Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us. I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be. Thanks Graeme On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be valuable insight - and inform our important discussion! Best, Kathy : Hi Kiran, Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made. I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se"). Best, Kathy : Hi Kathy, Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call! We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did. Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Metalitz, Steven -
Stephanie Perrin