Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG¹s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG. >From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration: * Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of ³law enforcement authority² as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a ³last call² for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate. Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Pursuant to Mary's request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG: 3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below ("law enforcement authority" definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a "quasi-governmental entity" should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)? Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG's Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of "law enforcement authority" as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a "last call" for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations - as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate. Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result? 3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.) The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows. Best, Volker Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, *please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. *Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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.
In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net
wrote:
Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
- Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; - The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, *please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. *Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://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.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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
-- *Terri Stumme* *Intelligence Analyst*
Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input. I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it. Best, Volker Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme:
In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
*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 *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, *please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. *Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- /Terri Stumme/ /Intelligence Analyst/
-- 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.
Sorry to jump in late on this thread, but I don’t believe it is accurate to say that RAA sec. 3.18 is the “exact meaning of what was submitted by LE.” Registrars and ICANN Legal discussed these provisions at length, and and many alternatives were proposed (and rejected) by both sides. And while we make every effort to work with any report submitted in good faith, we consider only those individuals/groups with a legislative or regulatory mandate as “Law Enforcement,” and even then only if the jurisdiction is applicable to the incident. The Internet is awash in groups, institutes, associations, etc. that claim self-deputized authority over social, religious, political or cultural issues, be it for a specific region or issue. And while we look at every report on its merits, we definitely do not recognize them as law enforcement. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 6:42 To: Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com<mailto:terri.stumme@legitscript.com>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input. I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it. Best, Volker Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result? 3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.) The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows. Best, Volker Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG: 3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)? Steve Metalitz 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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate. Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst -- 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.
Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process. If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report. On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme:
In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
- Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; - The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, *please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. *Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://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.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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
-- *Terri Stumme* *Intelligence Analyst*
-- 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.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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.
-- *Terri Stumme* *Intelligence Analyst*
Terri, I am not saying you did not have influence, but you were not at the negotiation table. You were part of the group of external inputters consulted by the negotiators and I thank you for making yourself available for that. Yet you were not "at the table" for the negotiations. The negotiations were a two-party thing. Volker Am 18.08.2015 um 17:46 schrieb Terri Stumme:
Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme:
In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
*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 *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, *please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. *Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- /Terri Stumme/ /Intelligence Analyst/
-- 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- /Terri Stumme/ /Intelligence Analyst/
-- 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.
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote:
Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme:
In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
*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 *Mary Wong *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities
Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, *please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. *Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- /Terri Stumme/ /Intelligence Analyst/
-- 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- /Terri Stumme/ /Intelligence Analyst/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process. To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process. If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report. On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input. I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it. Best, Volker Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result? 3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.) The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows. Best, Volker Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG: 3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)? Steve Metalitz 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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG. From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration: * Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate. Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst -- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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. -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst _______________________________________________ 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
Hello all - while the actual negotiations were between ICANN and the registrars, the scope of those negotiations were clearly understood to include priority topics identified by the community, including specifically the GNSO which had formed a joint Drafting Team with the ALAC to develop a list of topics, and law enforcement representatives whose input was submitted through the GAC. These points were expressly noted in the Board’s resolution that kicked off the negotiations in late 2011: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2011-10-28-en#7. I hope this background information will help in focusing the WG’s further discussions on whether the current definition of LEA in the Initial Report requires further amendment in light of the public comments received (besides making it clear that the link to the same term in the RAA also includes any future updates/amendments to that term in the RAA, as suggested by James on the call today.) Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 13:07 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.c a>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it. While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions. Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party. "V" Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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.
It might sound rough to the ears but I'm afraid Volker is right about this one. Saying you made suggestions for language and amendments is not the same as being at the table pushing a community's POV in negotiations. I chaired the At-Large WHOIS WG for most of the time the RAA 2013 was in negotiations. And yes, At-Large interests caucused and 'threw things over the fence' time and again but we could never be sure anyone was even listening since we hardly got receipt acknowledgement. So it would be a stretch to say the RAA contract negotiation was a bottom-up process. The ALAC did request observer status in the negotiations itself but was politely rebuffed. So we did the next best thing; we began meeting directly and regularly with a group of registrars and exchanged views. That facility was negotiated by the then ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond and organized on the registrars' side by one Michele Neylon. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it.
While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions.
Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party.
"V"
Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto: stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
I suspect that a lot of law enforcement folks would be a little surprised if you told them that they weren't part of the negotiations. :) Although I wasn't personally involved in negotiations the multi-stakeholder process that resulted in the RAA, I think it might be helpful to step back and think about the larger context of the discussion here and the history as I understand it (and I'm not sure I still have sight of the relevance to P/P issues, but hey -- whatev...). I think that ICANN policy and policy documents -- including the RAA -- are developed and refined based on input from a lot of parties; I've heard a few stakeholders *including registrars* say over the last couple of years that certain provisions in the 2013 RAA are there "because law enforcement (or the GAC) wanted it" or "as a result of negotiations with law enforcement" (or "the GAC"). I've also heard that from at least one ICANN staff person. So, argue about the terminology all you want -- and this may come down to nothing but terminology -- but it seems pretty clear that the GAC and/or law enforcement -- even if not a party to the RAA -- had a pretty important voice and were asked if they "could accept" certain things. As, I hope, did others. But I also think that in general, a long-standing historic legal principle is useful to keep in mind any time that a question comes up regarding the RAA or some other contract or document. If the meaning of text (e.g, in a contract or regulation) is clear and easily understood to an average reader, then that language -- not attempts to claim "That's not what we meant!" -- is controlling. Usually, "legislative history" or the contractual parties' subjective intent is only relevant in the case of ambiguous language -- not as a strategy to undermine or neutralize clear, easily understandable text. Over and out. John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
It might sound rough to the ears but I'm afraid Volker is right about this one. Saying you made suggestions for language and amendments is not the same as being at the table pushing a community's POV in negotiations.
I chaired the At-Large WHOIS WG for most of the time the RAA 2013 was in negotiations. And yes, At-Large interests caucused and 'threw things over the fence' time and again but we could never be sure anyone was even listening since we hardly got receipt acknowledgement. So it would be a stretch to say the RAA contract negotiation was a bottom-up process.
The ALAC did request observer status in the negotiations itself but was politely rebuffed. So we did the next best thing; we began meeting directly and regularly with a group of registrars and exchanged views. That facility was negotiated by the then ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond and organized on the registrars' side by one Michele Neylon.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it.
While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions.
Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party.
"V"
Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto: stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Carlton Yes, that was prior to my being Chair of the RrSG :) As others have pointed out: * the RAA is a contract between two parties – ICANN the corporation and the registrars. The topics that were discussed and that drove most of the negotiations came from a combination of community and staff input. * Law enforcement etc., were NOT party to the negotiations. They, in common with many others, were able to provide input, but the contract was not negotiated with them. * Consensus policy is binding on registrars, registries and registrants. * I’m not an expert on the “picket fence”, but it’s a very important topic that Volker and others can speak to, but in very simple terms it delineates what is covered by policy (ie. The multi-stakeholder model) and what is covered by the contract between two parties) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carlton Samuels Date: Wednesday 19 August 2015 15:45 To: Volker Greimann Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations It might sound rough to the ears but I'm afraid Volker is right about this one. Saying you made suggestions for language and amendments is not the same as being at the table pushing a community's POV in negotiations. I chaired the At-Large WHOIS WG for most of the time the RAA 2013 was in negotiations. And yes, At-Large interests caucused and 'threw things over the fence' time and again but we could never be sure anyone was even listening since we hardly got receipt acknowledgement. So it would be a stretch to say the RAA contract negotiation was a bottom-up process. The ALAC did request observer status in the negotiations itself but was politely rebuffed. So we did the next best thing; we began meeting directly and regularly with a group of registrars and exchanged views. That facility was negotiated by the then ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond and organized on the registrars' side by one Michele Neylon. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it. While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions. Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party. "V" Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process. To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>> wrote: Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process. If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report. On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input. I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it. Best, Volker Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result? 3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.) The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows. Best, Volker Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG: 3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31) 4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?) 5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)? Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: 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: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG. From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration: * Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate. Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889><tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> _______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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><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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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><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><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst -- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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><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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851><tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net><http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net><http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com><http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://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><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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><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. -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
Please be assured that I do understand how contracts work as a regulation mechanism at ICANN. However, it is my observation that the contracts contain policy. I cannot in all instances follow the thread back to a policy decision of the GNSO. And if there is lobbying going on to express viewpoints etc, that is a problem in my view. Greater transparency is in the public interest. cheers Stephanie On 2015-08-19 4:37, Volker Greimann wrote:
The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it.
While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions.
Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party.
"V"
Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
Stephanie, I believe Volkers condescending remarks about understanding contracts was directed at me, not you, although it should be noted I also understand how contracts work. Can someone tell me what this has to do with the work of the PPSAI? I've lost the connection. K Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 19, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Please be assured that I do understand how contracts work as a regulation mechanism at ICANN. However, it is my observation that the contracts contain policy. I cannot in all instances follow the thread back to a policy decision of the GNSO. And if there is lobbying going on to express viewpoints etc, that is a problem in my view. Greater transparency is in the public interest. cheers Stephanie
On 2015-08-19 4:37, Volker Greimann wrote: The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it.
While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions.
Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party.
"V"
Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Kiran, in that case, the connection to our work was lost prior to my response, which was intended to set the record straight, not to be condescending in any form or shape. Sorry if I sounded that way (#notmymothertongue #foreignspeaker). Best, Volker Am 20.08.2015 um 03:34 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
Stephanie,
I believe Volkers condescending remarks about understanding contracts was directed at me, not you, although it should be noted I also understand how contracts work.
Can someone tell me what this has to do with the work of the PPSAI? I've lost the connection.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 19, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Please be assured that I do understand how contracts work as a regulation mechanism at ICANN. However, it is my observation that the contracts contain policy. I cannot in all instances follow the thread back to a policy decision of the GNSO. And if there is lobbying going on to express viewpoints etc, that is a problem in my view. Greater transparency is in the public interest. cheers Stephanie
On 2015-08-19 4:37, Volker Greimann wrote: The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it.
While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions.
Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party.
"V"
Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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.
Stephanie- Maybe we are just picking at semantics, but I do not agree that "contracts contain policy." Instead, we have a contractual obligation to comply with ICANN policies. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy
On Aug 19, 2015, at 19:43, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Please be assured that I do understand how contracts work as a regulation mechanism at ICANN. However, it is my observation that the contracts contain policy. I cannot in all instances follow the thread back to a policy decision of the GNSO. And if there is lobbying going on to express viewpoints etc, that is a problem in my view. Greater transparency is in the public interest. cheers Stephanie
On 2015-08-19 4:37, Volker Greimann wrote: The contract is not subject to the bottom up process. I suggest you read up on the picket fence, and whats inside and outside of it.
While there is an opportunity to provide input it is negotiated between ICANN and registrars, and as in any contract, the interpretation of the parties at the time of agreement is essential to its meaning. There is no multi-stakeholder bottom up process in contract interpretation except where it informed or influenced ICANN or registrar positions.
Also look at 7.5 of the RAA everytime you think the RAA creates an obligation of a registrar towards you or any other third party.
"V"
Am 18.08.2015 um 19:07 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil: Indeed Stephanie, Volkers comments that the only two entities that matter in the interpretation/negotiation of the RAA are ICANN STAFF and the Registrars definitely flies in the face of the multi stakeholder bottom up process.
To answer your question directly, law enforcements recommendations were the subject of public comments I believe. Certainly I recall civil society and others (such as the IPC) weighing in on multiple occasions. Not sure what value that has in the face of Volkers opinion.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Was civil society present at these negotiations? Certainly sets policy, which supposed to be a bottom up process at ICANN. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-18 11:46, Terri Stumme wrote: Volker, with all due respect, the law enforcement coalition was certainly involved in the negotiations. Law enforcement had meetings with the registrars (ICANN staff present), and also met with ICANN staff separately, as did the registrars, to discuss and resolve the issues that arose from the original RAA LE recommendations. I therefore object to your conclusion that I was not at the table or part of the negotiations. I was part of the LE coalition throughout the entire process.
If the definition as it is written in the RAA is not the common understanding or accepted interpretation of the Registrars, then the definition should be revisited for modification in the RAA, not changed for purposes of the PPSAI report.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Terri, with all due respect, the language was negotiated between ICANN staff and registrars. LEAs may have had a hand in suggesting language for inclusion, but was not at the table or part of the negotiations. You were definitely not "involved in the negotiations", but you were invited to provide input.
I therefore object to your conclusion that your interpretation reflects what the parties intended. It may very well have been the intention of LEAs when they suggested the language, but it was not the common understanding or accepted interpretation when registrars discussed the language with ICANN and agreed to it.
Best,
Volker
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Terri Stumme: In regard to Section 3.18.2 of the RAA -- the language is written and encompasses the exact meaning of what was submitted by LE, and accepted by the Registrars during the LE/Registrar negotiations. During the time that the RAA was negotiated, I worked for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and was involved in the negotiations. I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to undermine the intent of this section, or attempt to modify it in any way -- the language means exactly what it says and was intended to mean.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: Can we rephrase the responses to sound more neutral as to the result?
3. Response to Question 3: Does proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such have an impact on the benefit or value of such registration and if what should be the result of this? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be maintained or prohibited? (Comments 24, 31) (Please also note that the cancellation of the registration may not even be a tool in the toolkit of the privacy provider, depending on his degree of integration with the registrar.)
The law enforcement authority as discussed for the RAA was supposed to only include official state-run law enforcement bodies and such agencies designated by law with certain powers comparable to official LEAs. We have seen a small number of cases where the language was later used beyond what was intended to organizations that received no more than a latter from a government agency supporting that organizations work. Our definition therefore should limit the scope of LEAs to that originally intended definition, not the unintended definition the language currently allows.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.08.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Pursuant to Mary’s request, I suggest the following additional issues raised in comments contained in the public comment tool document summarized, for possible consideration by the WG:
3. Response to Question 3: Should the proposed requirement to label p/p registrations as such be dispensed with because it reduces the benefit or value of such registration? (Comments 18, 25, 31)
4. Response to Question 8: Should providers be required to forward all disclosure requests to customers, unless prohibited by law? (Comments 17, 29) (I.e., should this feature of Annex E be made applicable to all disclosure requests, not just those relating to intellectual property?)
5. Response to Question 8: Should the option of registration cancellation in lieu of disclosure be prohibited? (Comments 24, 31)
In addition, with regard to issue #2 as summarized below (“law enforcement authority” definition): since the definition in our initial report was copied from the 2013 RAA, can any registrars in our group report on whether or not this definition has thus far caused difficulties in the RAA context (e.g., have there been problems in determining whether a complaint from a “quasi-governmental entity” should be handled under RAA section 3.18.2, with its 24-hour time limit, rather than under 3.18.1)?
Steve Metalitz
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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:04 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Issue-spotting for the WG's preliminary recommendations
Dear WG members,
As noted on the WG call earlier today, please send to this your suggestions for issues arising out of specific public comments received on the WG’s Preliminary Recommendations #1 through #9 that you think should be discussed by the broader WG.
From the call today, two issues with Recommendation #1 were identified for WG consideration:
* Whether the definitions include lawyers and law firms that provide proxy registration services for their clients other than as a primary business offering; * The possible breadth/vagueness of the proposed definition of “law enforcement authority” as including quasi-governmental and other entities Since the WG Public Comment Review Tool for these nine recommendations have been in circulation since 20 July, please treat this email as a “last call” for issue-spotting concerning these nine recommendations – as such, please send any issues you spot to this list by Friday 14 August. Please also indicate in your email which comment(s)/commenter(s) you are referring to as raising the issue(s) you identify. Note that, as confirmed during the WG call today, this exercise is for purposes of issue-spotting only at the moment rather than final resolution, which will depend on further discussions, as appropriate.
Staff will compile the issues so identified for review by the WG on our next call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
-- 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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.
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (10)
-
Carlton Samuels -
James M. Bladel -
John Horton -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Metalitz, Steven -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Stephanie Perrin -
Terri Stumme -
Volker Greimann