Gnso-ppsai3
Threads by month
- ----- 2026 -----
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2025 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
October 2015
- 4 participants
- 2 discussions
PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re: Follow up from WG call yesterday)
by Mary Wong Nov. 3, 2015
by Mary Wong Nov. 3, 2015
Nov. 3, 2015
Hello everyone can we do a call this Friday 25 September at 1900 UTC?
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 23:12
Cc: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: Sub Team call? (Re: Follow up from WG call yesterday)
> Thanks very much, Todd! Everyone can we ask that you let us know your
> availability for a Sub Team call at any of the times indicated by Todd, below?
> Thank you all!
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>
>
> From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 23:00
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
> Subject: RE: Sub Team call? (Re: Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>
>> Thank you Mary. I think a call is a good idea. Friday at or after 1900 UTC
>> is better for me. Though if we want to do tomorrow, I could do 1400-1500 UTC
>> or 1600-1800 UTC.
>>
>> Todd.
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mary Wong
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:05 AM
>> Cc: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Sub Team call? (Re: Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>> Hello again everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> Following a discussion with the WG co-chairs yesterday, we would like to
>> suggest that the Sub Team consider doing a call this week to review the notes
>> from the last WG call (see below), with the goal of presenting
>> recommendations and/or alternative proposals to the full WG for discussion
>> next week (i.e. Tuesday 29 September).
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are able to do a call this week, would either Wednesday (at or after
>> 1400 UTC) or Friday (at or after 1900 UTC) work for you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> Mary Wong
>>
>> Senior Policy Director
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>
>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 16:27
>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>> Subject: Follow up from WG call yesterday
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the notes I captured from the WG discussion yesterday; we should
>>> have the full transcript and MP3 recording uploaded by tomorrow at the
>>> latest but I thought these notes might be helpful, at least as an initial
>>> framework for the next Sub Team discussion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Section I.B.(iii):
>>>
>>> - Need to discuss retaining it in some form; costs are real for providers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Section II:
>>>
>>> - Should there be provision for indemnification to provider against misuse
>>> of data? (NOTE: unlikely to gain support, so possibly no need to add)
>>>
>>> - A(6)(b)(ii): can a requester under the new wording keep/use the data to
>>> assocate with other information about the registrant e.g. for future or
>>> other requests? Does reverse apply to registrar/provider ie do they keep
>>> data that's sent to them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Section III:
>>>
>>> - III.B: Secure communications may not be as easily or readily done as might
>>> be desired (so revision is well-intended but maybe not entirely practical)
>>>
>>> - 5 calendar days rather than 3 is more reasonable from providers'
>>> perspective
>>>
>>> - saying "encouraged" but not mandating action would nullify need for this
>>> section B (NOTE: many people on the call agree with this, one objected)
>>>
>>> - III.C.: use some other word than ³surrender², and one that makes clear
>>> this does not mean a transfer; in any event, clarify that it's a deletion at
>>> the option of a customer (NOTE: there was some discussion over whether
>>> providers must be required to offer this option; reminder that previous WG
>>> discussions had led to agreement to NOT make it mandatory due to varying
>>> provider practices)
>>>
>>> - III.C.(v) & (vi): do they overlap? Should they be merged?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Annex I:
>>>
>>> - Keep both options to clarify they are two possible ways of dealing with
>>> the issues?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you like to do a Sub Team call to walk through these suggestions, or
>>> should we continue to discuss first by email? I will check with the WG
>>> co-chairs when they would like a revised, more finalized, set of
>>> recommendations to be presented to the WG (if possible).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mary Wong
>>>
>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>
>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 21:19
>>> To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>, Mary Wong
>>> <mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team Consideration
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Holly. As I mentioned when I circulated the draft (see attached
>>>> email):
>>>>
>>>> ³for Sara, Kathy, and the others on our sub-team who have argued that
>>>> ³verifiable evidence² means something higher let us know how you would
>>>> further edit Sections II(A), (B), and (C) to meet whatever ³higher²
>>>> standard you have in mind.²
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:43 AM
>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>> Cc: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team Consideration
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does help - particularly since I recognise my words in the extract.
>>>> What it suggests, however, is acceptance that the elements a requested
>>>> gives to a provider amounts to the standard of evidence that is
>>>> verifiable¹ - as described below. My question to the group, therefore, is
>>>> whether the addition of those words has been agreed upon by the group. If
>>>> not, the words should not be there; their mere presence suggests agreement,
>>>> and puts the onus on those of us who don¹t agree to argue for the removal
>>>> of words that were not agreed to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be pedantic, folks, but the presence of those words suggests a
>>>> level of agreement that I am not aware of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holly
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Sep 2015, at 10:27 pm, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Holly and everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Todd noted in his report to the full WG last week on behalf of the Sub
>>>>> Team, the document doesn¹t represent the finished consensus product of the
>>>>> Sub Team but rather is being presented as a tool for further WG
>>>>> discussion. The document includes certain revisions that were added to
>>>>> more fully reflect the comments that were received, and as such could be
>>>>> one form of a revised Annex E however, as Todd mentioned, it isn¹t the
>>>>> agreed result of the Sub Team¹s substantive analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, in the summary document that was also sent out in tandem, here
>>>>> is how the Sub Team¹s discussion on the question of ³verifiable evidence²
>>>>> was presented:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Further, the Save Domain Privacy petition, which had 10,042 signatories
>>>>> and also included [x] number of additional statements, argued that
>>>>> ³privacy providers should not be forced to reveal my private information
>>>>> without verifiable evidence of wrongdoing.² We as a sub-team could not
>>>>> agree on how to interpret ³verifiable evidence,² and will leave that
>>>>> discussion to the larger WG. Some on the sub-team viewed these comments
>>>>> as supporting Annex E because the requirements in Annex E as currently
>>>>> formulated can be interpreted as constituting verifiable evidence, while
>>>>> others on the sub-team interpret verifiable evidence¹ as requiring a
>>>>> court order and therefore not in support of Annex E. However, some also
>>>>> noted that the word ³verifiable² does not imply that the evidence has been
>>>>> tested through a legal process; rather, it simply points toward requiring
>>>>> that evidence provided must be credible/provable enough so that, in a
>>>>> legal proceeding, it would withstand legal scrutiny, but does not
>>>>> necessarily imply that there must have been a court process in all cases."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this help?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>
>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 20:18
>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>> <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>> Cc: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>, Sara Bockey
>>>>> <sbockey(a)godaddy.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team Consideration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I apologise for not participating over the past week - I¹ve been away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is, next to the headings on request for templates, the words
>>>>>> after requester provides to the service provider, the words verifiable
>>>>>> evidence of wrong doing, including¹.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What that implies is that the following text lists what would constitute
>>>>>> verifiable evidence¹ and indeed, the word including¹ suggests that
>>>>>> other elements can also constitute verifiable evidence¹. Has the group
>>>>>> agreed on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My impression was that we had not yet agreed what the term meant, but
>>>>>> that it must be evidence of a very high standard - impliedly something
>>>>>> that could be used in court processes. I am not convinced that the
>>>>>> elements listed under Heading II meet that test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Mary, others, was this agreed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Sep 2015, at 7:11 am, Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:18 PM
>>>>>>> To: Sara Bockey, Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> "
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Sara. I¹m still confused. In order:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I still don¹t see any mention in the CDT comment re: removal of
>>>>>>> alleged infringing materials in lieu of disclosure. I do see support
>>>>>>> for the additional language that the attached draft adds to III(C)(vii)
>>>>>>> about ³specific information, facts and/or circumstances showing that
>>>>>>> disclosure to the Requester will endanger the safety of the Customer²
>>>>>>> (in fact, that language was added specifically to capture the point of
>>>>>>> the paragraph from the CDT comment that you¹ve quoted below). But that
>>>>>>> is completely different from what you¹ve added, for which I cannot find
>>>>>>> any support in any of the public comments. I also don¹t understand your
>>>>>>> claim that ³rights and actions available to the registrant are sorely
>>>>>>> lacking in Annex E² given that Annex E explicitly contemplates notice
>>>>>>> to the registrant and contemplates input from the registrant in Sections
>>>>>>> III(A), III(C)(ii), III(C)(iii), III(C)(iv), III(C)(vi), and
>>>>>>> III(C)(vii).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · The portion of the NCSG comment that you¹ve cited addressed the
>>>>>>> appeals mechanism of Section III(F), not the reconsideration mechanism
>>>>>>> of III(E). In fact, the attached draft removes the appeal mechanism of
>>>>>>> III(F) precisely because of the language that you quoted below from the
>>>>>>> NCSG comment (among others). But that language has nothing to do with
>>>>>>> III(E).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I don¹t understand what the comments from Key Systems, Ralf
>>>>>>> Haring, or Adam Creighton have to do with III(E) which again, is only
>>>>>>> talking about a request for reconsideration. Moreover, the Key Systems
>>>>>>> comment is simply inaccurate: the Disclosure Framework never ³assume[d]
>>>>>>> disclosure if certain process steps are followed regardless of the
>>>>>>> merits of the complaint² a point that the attached revised draft now
>>>>>>> makes explicit in the preamble (³by not requiring that disclosure
>>>>>>> automatically follow any given request²).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to reiterate: I¹ve always viewed our job in the two documents that
>>>>>>> our sub-team has drafted as being to accurately report to the larger WG
>>>>>>> what the comments that we¹ve reviewed say. Which means two things: 1)
>>>>>>> we have to be true to the comments, and not reinterpret them to say
>>>>>>> something they don¹t; and 2) we have to reserve our advocacy for or
>>>>>>> against certain points from those comments for the larger WG discussion.
>>>>>>> That¹s what I tried to do in the attached. So if you want to argue
>>>>>>> against Annex E, that¹s fine do so on the call tomorrow. In fact, I¹m
>>>>>>> planning to argue against several of the proposed changes that are
>>>>>>> included in the attached. But I still included those proposed changes
>>>>>>> in the attached draft, and accurately noted which comments they were
>>>>>>> based on because to do otherwise would be misleading to the larger WG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Sara Bockey [mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> ]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:50 PM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> >
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please see my comments inline below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disclaimer: I do not support Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 11:57 AM
>>>>>>> To: Sara Bockey, Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> "
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two quick questions on this as I was getting ready for our call
>>>>>>> tomorrow:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Your addition of a new III(C)(v) stating ³the Customer has
>>>>>>> removed the infringing trademark and/or copyright material in lieu of
>>>>>>> disclosure² what public comment that we reviewed was that change based
>>>>>>> on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on CDT¹s comment re registrant¹s ability to respond to allegations
>>>>>>> removal of alleged infringing materials in lieu of disclosure would
>>>>>>> fall into this category. Rights and actions available to the registrant
>>>>>>> are sorely lacking in Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mere allegation of infringement or illegality is insufficient cause for
>>>>>>> a provider to disclose a customer¹s data to a third party; it is
>>>>>>> frequently trivially easy for a party abusing the system to allege
>>>>>>> frivolous or nonexistent civil claims to justify a demand for personal
>>>>>>> information. Registrants should have the ability and opportunity to
>>>>>>> respond to the allegations and to the dangers to which they, their
>>>>>>> families, and their organizations might be subjected, and to obtain
>>>>>>> counsel on these matters.
>>>>>>> Revealing a customer¹s registration data should only occur when there
>>>>>>> has been a substantial
>>>>>>> showing of likelihood of abuse and only after due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2)Can you show me where in the NCSG comment (here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfBoyWzlMS3
>>>>>>> q.pdf
>>>>>>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfBoyWzlMS
>>>>>>> 3q.pdf>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ) the NCSG argued for the addition of the clause ³in instances where
>>>>>>> Requester has discovered and submitted additional evidence or
>>>>>>> information which warrants consideration² to III(E)? You noted that
>>>>>>> this change was based on the NCSG comment, but I can¹t find anything in
>>>>>>> that comment that mentions III(E) though admittedly I could have
>>>>>>> missed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on NCSG comment re unlimited appeals .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under no circumstances should Intellectual Property Interests, Law
>>>>>>> Enforcement or any other Requestors have unlimited appeals to third
>>>>>>> party dispute resolution providers. It will be far more than an
>>>>>>> implementation detail to define this appellate procedure but a whole
>>>>>>> new arbitration forum of its own will need to be created and a UDRP
>>>>>>> process undiscussed and unplanned by this Working Group. All
>>>>>>> deliberation about appeal mechanisms should be set aside at this time.
>>>>>>> Any Intellectual Property owner or group that feels a Provider is
>>>>>>> routinely denying appropriate requests will have full access to the
>>>>>>> growing and increasingly responsive ICANN Compliance Team which will
>>>>>>> be accessible to Complainers through the accreditation process now being
>>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Key Systems¹ comment would also support this addition:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do not support the proposed Disclosure Framework as it assumes
>>>>>>> disclosure if certain process steps are followed regardless of the
>>>>>>> merits of the complaint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As well as Ralf Haring¹s comment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Disagree with proposal that] Providers can be forced to give your
>>>>>>> private contact details to anyone complaining that your site violates
>>>>>>> their copyright or trademark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Adam Creighton¹s comment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the language is too loose, and opens individuals up to frivolous
>>>>>>> litigation from IP rights owners and third-party agencies whose
>>>>>>> contracted relationship is to expand IP brand presence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Sara Bockey [mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> ]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 4:40 PM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> >
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As promised, attached is a redline of my input to the proposed changes
>>>>>>> Todd drafted. Todd was pretty thorough and had included several
>>>>>>> revisions I had in mind based on the comments so my edits are limited to
>>>>>>> a few comments and additions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:58 PM
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> "
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As promised on our call, attached is a redline of the Draft Disclosure
>>>>>>> Framework, with annotations noting the source of each proposed change.
>>>>>>> Several notes as you review:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I know that we¹ve debated whether ³verifiable evidence² means
>>>>>>> more than what is currently in Sections II(A), (B), and (C). You¹ll see
>>>>>>> that I¹ve added the exact wording from the savedomainprivacy.org
>>>>>>> <http://savedomainprivacy.org/> petition ³verifiable evidence of
>>>>>>> wrongdoing² to those sections. I think that is a good fit, as of
>>>>>>> right now. But for Sara, Kathy, and the others on our sub-team who have
>>>>>>> argued that ³verifiable evidence² means something higher let us know
>>>>>>> how you would further edit Sections II(A), (B), and (C) to meet whatever
>>>>>>> ³higher² standard you have in mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · You¹ll note that I briefly added a reference to the comment from
>>>>>>> Com Laude (which I think we had omitted from our summary). And that I
>>>>>>> did not reference the comment from Aaron Myers (which we¹ve referenced
>>>>>>> in our summary, but which doesn¹t really offer any edits to the
>>>>>>> Disclosure Framework). Otherwise I think I¹ve covered everything that
>>>>>>> we reviewed in terms of edits to the Disclosure Framework though let
>>>>>>> me know if anybody sees anything I¹ve missed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Just to be clear for the record: the attached is a revised
>>>>>>> Disclosure Framework that illustrates and attempts to account for all of
>>>>>>> the proposed edits that we received from the public comments, for the
>>>>>>> larger Working Group¹s reference. But it is not how I would have edited
>>>>>>> the Disclosure Framework. In fact, I¹ll reserve the right to argue
>>>>>>> against some of these proposed edits, once we get into the larger WG
>>>>>>> discussion. Just wanted to make that clear so that nobody thinks these
>>>>>>> edits are mine (since I¹m the one who drafted the document).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org>
>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 6:59 AM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello again everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you look through the proposed revised summary document (below), you
>>>>>>> may also wish to consider whether some of the additional comments that
>>>>>>> were included in Part 4 of the overall WG Public Comment Review Tool
>>>>>>> might be useful such that additional notes or recommendations can be
>>>>>>> made, or existing language amended. For your convenience I¹ve extracted
>>>>>>> ten such comments which, while not sent in as specific responses to the
>>>>>>> Preliminary Recommendations and Annex E that this Sub Team is analysing,
>>>>>>> nonetheless seem relevant generally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I attach these ten comments in tabular form to this email, and welcome
>>>>>>> the Sub Team¹s discussion and comments on whether any of them ought to
>>>>>>> be considered as well as your thoughts on the summary document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the Sub Team is due to report back to the full WG next Tuesday,
>>>>>>> please let me know also if you think a call before then amongst the Sub
>>>>>>> Team members might be needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, August 31, 2015 at 15:46
>>>>>>> To: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> "
>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> >
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone, in an attempt to facilitate further dialogue and,
>>>>>>> hopefully, consensus on a way forward on this issue, I¹ve taken the
>>>>>>> liberty of amending Kathy¹s document to take into account Holly¹s
>>>>>>> comments as well as to attempt to place certain comments (e.g. the
>>>>>>> ICA¹s, EasyDNS¹) more specifically within a particular category. I
>>>>>>> attach both a redlined and clean copy of this latest updated version
>>>>>>> (with the clean copy including yellow highlighted portions where the
>>>>>>> most significant language changes are suggested). I have not yet broken
>>>>>>> the comments down further into the registrant/provider distinction that
>>>>>>> Todd noted, but can of course do so if this is viewed as useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that this is not a staff position that is being suggested,
>>>>>>> but merely an attempt to document where the Sub Team¹s discussion seems
>>>>>>> to be at the moment. I hope this is helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, August 28, 2015 at 22:40
>>>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> " <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> >
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy. I both agree and disagree with what you¹ve said below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I strongly agree that ³the key is the quotes that have come out of the
>>>>>>> comments.² I¹ve said repeatedly that our job as a sub-team is not to
>>>>>>> advocate, but to simply present the comments to the WG in as accurate
>>>>>>> and objective a way as possible. To the extent that we then want to
>>>>>>> advocate for our own positions as part of the larger WG, we can do so.
>>>>>>> Moreover, part of the reason why I feel so strongly that ³the key is the
>>>>>>> quotes² is that I think we have to take the comments at face value, and
>>>>>>> then debate as WG whether we can reach consensus on what they actually
>>>>>>> say not on what we want them to say. That¹s why I felt so strongly
>>>>>>> that ³verifiable evidence² should not be reinterpreted to mean a court
>>>>>>> order. It is also what animated my email exchange with Stephanie in the
>>>>>>> larger WG (attached).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if we are in fact faithful to what the comments actually say, then
>>>>>>> it is a mistake to lump all of the ³court order² comments into one
>>>>>>> monolithic group. I¹ve given some examples of substantive differences
>>>>>>> below. But let me give another one: if we look at what they actually
>>>>>>> say, the ³court order² comments are very much divided based on whether
>>>>>>> the comment came from an individual registrant or from a
>>>>>>> registrar/provider. Which of course makes sense: a registrant will tend
>>>>>>> to look at these issues very differently than a provider. Specifically,
>>>>>>> as you correctly note in our draft, the vast majority of comments
>>>>>>> (11,000+) from individuals/registrants said that ³Everyone deserves the
>>>>>>> right to privacy² and that ³No one¹s personal information should be
>>>>>>> revealed without a court order, regardless of whether the request comes
>>>>>>> from a private individual or law enforcement agency.² And of course, we
>>>>>>> can understand why registrants would argue that their right to privacy
>>>>>>> is inviolate, and that it should never be abrogated unless a court
>>>>>>> blesses it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But note that the registrar/provider comments in the ³court order² group
>>>>>>> do NOT say the same thing. Rather, they are focused on retaining their
>>>>>>> discretion as to when to disclose or publish, and do not want an
>>>>>>> accreditation standard that requires them to do so absent a court order.
>>>>>>> Hence my point about the word ³require² in the Blacknight comment. See
>>>>>>> also the Key Systems comment: ³Disclosure or publication should never be
>>>>>>> the automatic result of a process, but rather remain an option of the
>>>>>>> provider.² And others. So one key distinction b/w the
>>>>>>> registrant/individual comments and the registrar/provider comments is
>>>>>>> that the registrant comments do not want disclosure or publication EVER
>>>>>>> unless following a court order, while the provider comments want a court
>>>>>>> order first if SOMEBODY ELSE wants them to disclose or publish, but not
>>>>>>> if THEY want to disclose or publish. And we can understand why, given
>>>>>>> how many provider Terms of Service include language that gives them
>>>>>>> discretion to basically turn off a P/P Service whenever they want (for
>>>>>>> example, if the registrant stops paying them), without any kind of
>>>>>>> process beforehand (due process or otherwise). See below (among many
>>>>>>> others):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Blacknight: https://www.blacknight.com/acceptable-usage.html
>>>>>>> <https://www.blacknight.com/acceptable-usage.html> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Whoisprivacy.com <http://whoisprivacy.com/> , Ltd.:
>>>>>>> http://www.whoisprivacyservices.com.au/terms.htm
>>>>>>> <http://www.whoisprivacyservices.com.au/terms.htm> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · EuroDNS S.A.:
>>>>>>> https://www.eurodns.com/terms-and-conditions/whois-privacy
>>>>>>> <https://www.eurodns.com/terms-and-conditions/whois-privacy> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · 1&1 Internet, Inc.: http://www.1and1.com/TcPdr?__lf=Static
>>>>>>> <http://www.1and1.com/TcPdr?__lf=Static> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Domain.com <http://domain.com/> , LLC:
>>>>>>> http://www.domain.com/legal/legal_domain.bml#domain-privacy-service
>>>>>>> <http://www.domain.com/legal/legal_domain.bml#domain-privacy-service> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · DomainIt, Inc.: https://www.domainit.com/terms.html
>>>>>>> <https://www.domainit.com/terms.html> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Moniker Privacy Services, LLC:
>>>>>>> http://www.moniker.com/legal/registration-agreement
>>>>>>> <http://www.moniker.com/legal/registration-agreement> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we can understand why providers would not want an accreditation
>>>>>>> regime that requires them to get a court order before they turn off a
>>>>>>> registrant¹s privacy service (and to rewrite their Terms of Service
>>>>>>> accordingly). In fact, Volker has already admitted both on the email
>>>>>>> list (see attached) and on our weekly calls (see transcript of 8-11-15
>>>>>>> call) that such an accreditation requirement would have such a ³severe
>>>>>>> impact² on the economic realities of providers (in other words, would
>>>>>>> cost them so much money), that they could never agree to such a
>>>>>>> requirement. But of course, if I¹m an individual registrant concerned
>>>>>>> about my privacy and due process, then I could care less about the
>>>>>>> ³economic realities² of providers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point is only that we can¹t gloss over that important distinction
>>>>>>> (and others) by lumping all of the ³court order² comments together as if
>>>>>>> they were coming from the same place and advocating for the same thing.
>>>>>>> They¹re not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> ]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 8:44 AM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> >; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Todd,
>>>>>>> The entire WG is now looking to our comments to show what supports Annex
>>>>>>> E (deemed generally to be a lower standard than court order) and Court
>>>>>>> Order (deemed to be a much higher standard than Annex E). What we are
>>>>>>> talking about is the floor, not the ceiling, right, for accreditation?
>>>>>>> Namely, what is the minimum requirement for disclosure of proxied data?
>>>>>>> I see it as really quite binary - up or down (Annex E or court order for
>>>>>>> private requests to p/p providers) - but I can understand if the subteam
>>>>>>> thinks differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I think is key is the quotes that have come out of the comments.
>>>>>>> Provided we keep the quotes, I'm good.I can rework, but not until end of
>>>>>>> weekend or early next week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · When you say that ³in the weeks since the original draft, I
>>>>>>> think the discussion has evolved from a multipart one . . . to a binary
>>>>>>> one² what are you basing that on? Can you point to any transcripts or
>>>>>>> emails? I certainly don¹t remember being part of those discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Moreover, had I been involved in those discussions, I would have
>>>>>>> objected, because I think that lumping the comments together in the way
>>>>>>> that you have, and ignoring the categories that our sub-team had already
>>>>>>> agreed upon, does a disservice to the nuance of the comments from
>>>>>>> Google, ICA, EasyDNS, and the like. For example, a UDRP panel is not a
>>>>>>> court. I think that is an important distinction between Categories 2
>>>>>>> and 3. And the fact that the ICA and EasyDNS comments would allow for
>>>>>>> ³some exceptions for cases of abuse² is another important distinction
>>>>>>> that the broader WG ought to know about. I¹m fine if we want to include
>>>>>>> some sort of introductory sentence saying that __ comments opposed the
>>>>>>> basic premise of Annex E (which we do). But to then argue that those
>>>>>>> comments are monolithic, or that they all oppose the premise of Annex E
>>>>>>> in the same way, is not accurate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I simply understood the ISPCP comment to mean that allegations
>>>>>>> of infringement should not always be automatically taken as true (³not
>>>>>>> indisputably wronged parties²), and that some independent adjudicator
>>>>>>> (meaning, somebody other than the IP owner who is making the allegation)
>>>>>>> should evaluate the merits of those claims. Annex E as currently
>>>>>>> drafted provides for that. But I also don¹t think that you or I should
>>>>>>> necessarily be the ones to decide this argument. Why can¹t we just say
>>>>>>> that we weren¹t quite sure what to do with this one (as was true with
>>>>>>> some others), and take it to the larger WG for their consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I think you¹re missing my point on Blacknight. My point is that
>>>>>>> the key word is ³require.² As I mentioned below, nothing in Annex E
>>>>>>> ³requires² Blacknight to disclose (merely to give reasons if they refuse
>>>>>>> to disclose). So I don¹t see anything in their comment that is
>>>>>>> inconsistent with Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · On the APC comment: I don¹t disagree with you that the comment
>>>>>>> has important value for the WG. But that¹s not the same thing as saying
>>>>>>> that it advocates for disclosure only following a court order. It
>>>>>>> doesn¹t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> ]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:59 PM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> ; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Todd,
>>>>>>> Tx you for the close read. In the weeks since the original draft, I
>>>>>>> think the discussion has evolved from a multipart one - such as the 5
>>>>>>> categories originally created in Section III -- to a more binary one: do
>>>>>>> commenters support a system such as Annex E or do they want court order
>>>>>>> prior to the reveal of the data?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With apologies, I don't understand the differentiation into Categories
>>>>>>> 2, 3 and 4 in Section III. Some parties may have mentioned UDRP, and
>>>>>>> others not, but that does not take away from the totality of the
>>>>>>> commenters who want court orders -- or want court orders for certain
>>>>>>> categories of requests such as privacy requests to p/p providers from
>>>>>>> third parties, such as intellectual property requests. To divide up
>>>>>>> these comments really dilutes the argument, I think, as these commenters
>>>>>>> favor court order for the key issue we are evaluating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I would recommend keeping Google, Endurance, Wheelhouse, ICA and Easy
>>>>>>> DNS together in Category 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ISPCP Constituency Comments call for an "independent adjudicator" to
>>>>>>> "determine the merits of their ("intellectual property rights holders")
>>>>>>> claims. I thought that was pretty clear reference to a judge or
>>>>>>> magistrate, but if you see it differently, please let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re Blacknight, on the issue of Annex E or court order, the comments
>>>>>>> appear to come down squarely for court orders. For LEA, it recommends a
>>>>>>> different approach, but there is no reference to Annex E, only "a
>>>>>>> request from law enforcement, Irish consumer protection agencies or a
>>>>>>> court order with jurisdiction over us." The intellectual property
>>>>>>> requests falls into the final category -- court order -- and as such,
>>>>>>> this comment would be properly listed here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re: APC, Alliance for Progressive Communications, you are right that I
>>>>>>> missed a step in putting this comment forward. The question this quote
>>>>>>> addresses, and it is a valuable one, is court orders and jurisdiction --
>>>>>>> from which jurisdiction are court orders are valid? Here APC provides
>>>>>>> us with unique insight, very worth passing onto the WG: that release of
>>>>>>> domain name data in some countries has and will continue to result in
>>>>>>> arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc. of "domain owners" who are
>>>>>>> "exercising activism" online. This is a very tough issue that we
>>>>>>> discussed in the WG, and APC is on the ground in Africa and near the
>>>>>>> Middle East to see abuses first hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the WG explores the issue of court orders, the next question is: from
>>>>>>> what jurisdiction should/must p/p provider accept a court order? The APC
>>>>>>> comment reminds us that what is clearly legal in one country is
>>>>>>> punishable in another -- and that jurisdictional issues for court orders
>>>>>>> are a key part of what we (the WG) have to keep in mind. If you would
>>>>>>> like to create a introductory paragraph, or new section, for this type
>>>>>>> of discussion, I would certainly welcome it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy. One minor formatting suggestion:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the spectrum that we outline on page 5 (Categories 1-4) is
>>>>>>> useful, because not all of these comments are advocating for the same
>>>>>>> thing. Yet the quotes that we¹ve added from the comments are all
>>>>>>> included under Category 2, which is somewhat confusing. I would suggest
>>>>>>> that we move:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · The quotes from the comments from Google, Endurance
>>>>>>> International Group, and Jeff Wheelhouse to the paragraph on Category 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · The quotes from the comments from ICA and Easy DNS to the
>>>>>>> paragraph on Category 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I saw that you added quotes from the comments from ISPCPC,
>>>>>>> Blacknight, and the Association for Progressive Communications, even
>>>>>>> though those weren¹t in our initial summary and don¹t specifically
>>>>>>> mention Annex E. My thoughts on each:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Here¹s the full ISPCPC quote, from a section titled ³Regarding
>>>>>>> LEA definitions & differentiations²: ³While we respect the desire to
>>>>>>> utilize the official ICANN definition of Law Enforcement Agent (LEA), we
>>>>>>> acknowledge that intellectual property rights holders and private anti
>>>>>>> abuse organizations should be treated as complainants and not
>>>>>>> indisputably wronged parties, and accordingly an independent adjudicator
>>>>>>> should determine the merits of their claim before rights that users
>>>>>>> would otherwise have are abrogated by reason of those lawyers' claims.²
>>>>>>> To be honest, I¹m not really sure what to make of that (especially given
>>>>>>> that it is included under a heading about LEA definitions). But I¹m not
>>>>>>> sure that we can assume that it means disclosure only following a court
>>>>>>> order. Why would Annex E as currently drafted not satisfy the standard
>>>>>>> of ³an independent adjudicator should determine the merits of their
>>>>>>> claim²?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I also don¹t understand why we would think that the Blacknight
>>>>>>> quote is incompatible with Annex E. All it says is that ³any policy
>>>>>>> that would require us to divulge our client¹s information in the absence
>>>>>>> of either a request from law enforcement, Irish consumer protection
>>>>>>> agencies or a court order with jurisdiction over us is incompatible with
>>>>>>> Irish law.² But Annex E as currently drafted doesn¹t require Blacknight
>>>>>>> to divulge its client¹s information. Rather, it gives Blacknight the
>>>>>>> discretion to make that decision; all it requires is that Blacknight
>>>>>>> provide the complainant with its reasoning if it chooses to refuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I don¹t understand why we¹d include a quote from the APC comment
>>>>>>> in this section, given that it does not mention Annex E, and that it
>>>>>>> expressly endorsed the NCSG comment (see:
>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfwOfjgYV0i
>>>>>>> 9.pdf
>>>>>>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfwOfjgYV0
>>>>>>> i9.pdf> ), which we analyze in the previous section that supports the
>>>>>>> premise of Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org>
>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:17 PM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> Tx to Darcy for the Overview work. I've taken her draft and added to it
>>>>>>> my work on Section III as promised on the last call. I added more quotes
>>>>>>> from commenters seeking court orders and the use of existing legal due
>>>>>>> process mechanisms prior to disclosure of proxied data. There was a wide
>>>>>>> array of comments on this issue, including from ISPs, individuals,
>>>>>>> organizations, and companies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used Darcy's version as the base. Both her edits (Overview) and my
>>>>>>> edits (Section III) are shown in "track changes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, all!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In follow up to our call earlier this week, attached is an updated
>>>>>>> Sub-team 3 analysis draft with the overview added at the beginning. I
>>>>>>> redlined my changes so you can clearly see what I¹ve done. I hope you
>>>>>>> find that I present a clear and accurate overview.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also made some minor revisions to Section V (³Comments that did not
>>>>>>> fit neatly into any of the above categories²) that I realized after
>>>>>>> submitting my original draft of that section made a bit more sense.
>>>>>>> Again, I¹ve redlined the changes so you can easily see what changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darcy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Revised Illustrative Disclosure Framework for Intellectual Property
>>>>>>> Righ...[2][1].docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>
>
6
48
Helo again everyone, just to note that the WG chairs have also asked if itwill be at all possible to send a version of the updated document tomorrow
(Satrday), and in any event before Monday. Again, just let me know thank
you ll, and have a good weekend!
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 03 574 4889
Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>
ate: Friday, October 2, 2015 at 18:38
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.co
Cc: "Williams, Toddodd.Williams(a)turner.com>, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
<gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsa3] [renamed] Comments and concerns abou revisions
> Thanks, Kathy and Todd! Just wondering if it's ok to send this version to the
> WG with the usul caveats. As we're also expecting a document from sub team 4
> my concern is that sending both on Monday night mean people have little time
> to review either. Please advise - thanks!
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 18:1, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> Tx to Todd forhis time and notes! I look forward to reviewing the draft, as
>> I hope you wll. One quick note below... :
>>> All:
>>>
>>> Kathy called me today so thawe could walk through the document, which was
>>> incredibly helpful. Thank youathy for that. Based on that I have
>>> attached a new draft that captures the rsults of that call. I¹ve flagged
>>> in the Comments those areas that were changd from what I sent yesterday
>>> based on our call. But just to highlight them for your ease of reference:
>>>
>> · The language ³comply with all applicable data protection laws while
>>>retaining Customer¹s contact details and² was added to II(A)(6)(b),
>>> II(B)(7)(c), and II(C)(6)(b).
>> ==> this is an "add back." it was in the immediately prior versions (and the
>> one we reviewed together on Tuesdy), but removed due to something I said.
>> Since I was referring to other partsof the subsection, but not this one,
>> Todd and I added it back in.
>>> · he language ³using secure communication channels² was added back to
>>> III(B)(i). As I told Kathy: I don¹t have an opinion on that language. I
>>> had only removed t in what I sent yesterday to reflect the push-back
>>> against it that we had rceived in the 9-15 and 9-29 WG calls from Graeme,
>>> James, and other registrar epresentatives. But if we as a sub-team want to
>>> put it back in over teir objection, so be it.
>>>
>>> · On III(C)(ii) and (iii) (which were th two provisions that were the
>>> subject of my 9-29 email to Kathy below): Kahy agreed to include them in
>>> the draft if we changed ³a reasonable basis fo² to ³a basis for reasonably²
>>> in order to more precisely mirror the languae from Sections II(A)(6)(a),
>>> II(B)(7)(a), and II(C)(6)(a) (which as I understnd it was the original
>>> intent behind that language). So that change has ben made.
>>>
>>> · For III(C)(iv): again, I have no opinion on whether srrender should
>>> be optional or mandatory. My selection of optional in what Isent yesterday
>>> was only to reflect the push-back against making it mandatory that we had
>>> heard in the 9-15 and 9-29 calls rom the registrar representatives. But
>>> Kathy asked that we also add, as anther potential formulation for the WG to
>>> consider, ³which all Providers mut either allow or be allowed to allow.²
>>> So that is what you see there.
>>>
>> · We moved III(C)(vi) back to its own section in the draft yesteday
>>> it had been collapsed into III(C)(v).
>>>
>>> · We also discussedwhether to make a note alongside Option 1 in the
>>> Annex asking how much more ork the WG might need to do on Option #1 (e.g.,
>>> what penalties would the abitrator be authorized to levy?), and how much of
>>> that should instead be left to implementation or a different PDP. We didn¹t
>>> add any language per se just dded a note in the comment highlighting that
>>> point.
>>
>> Best and have good weekend,
>> Kathy
>>
>>> Kathy: please correct me if any of what I said dos not accurately reflect
>>> what we discussed. Look forward to hearingthe thoughts from the rest of
>>> the sub-team. Thanks and have a good weekend.
>>>
>>> Todd.
>>>
>>> From: Williams, Tdd
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 5:52 PM
>>> To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kahykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>
>>> ; 'gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.g>
>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] [renamed] Comments an concerns about revisions
>>>
>>> PerMary¹s latest status email (attached), I tried to revise the draft to
>>> capture the comments from our latest 929 call. See attached. Happy to
>>> discuss. Also happy to discuss frther your concerns on III(C)(ii) and
>>> (iii) Kathy, if you¹d like.
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Williams, Todd
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:42 AM
>>> To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] [renamed] Comments and concerns about revisions
>>
>>> Thanks Kathy. Now that we had the WG call and you identified the specific>>> language that you were concerned about as III(C)(ii) and (iii), I¹m even
>>>more confused.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned n the call, the two alternative formulations for III(C)(ii)
>>> and (iii) were included n the WG¹s Initial Report as alternative
>>> formulations for which the WG wa seeking community input. See Initial
>>> Report at pg. 91 (attached). hile many commenters opined on which of the
>>> two they preferred (with morepreferring the second alternative), the NCSG
>>> in its comment did not specif a preference for either. See:
>>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-psai-initial-05may15/pdfBoyWzlMS3q.p
>>> df>
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/coments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfBoyWzlMS3q.pd
>>> f. Based on tha history, I don¹t understand your claim from your email
>>> yesterday (attached) that ³I a very, very concerned about Section II, as
>>> revised, and I am very certain that NCSG and many other commenters (some
>>> folowing NCSG) would ever have supported Annex E in this revised form.²
>>>
>>> >>> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesda, September 29, 2015 9:54 AM
>>> To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams(a)turnr.com>; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [renamed] Comments and cncerns about revisions
>>>
>>> Hi Todd,
>>> Looking forward to seeing you on he call!
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> On 9/29/2015 9:46 AM, Williams, Todd wrote:
>>> Thanks Kathy. Look forward to discussing in the WG call. I guess my
>>>> qestion was more specific: what language has been changed in Section III
>>> as part of this sub-team¹s work that you think ³raises the standard for
>>>> enial² in the manner that you¹ve identified?
>>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, Septemer 29, 2015 9:41 AM
>>>> To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>>> <malto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> ; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsi3] [renamed] Comments and concerns about revisions
>>>>
>>>> Todd, sorry forthe delay. Much happening here in DC (including tons of
>>>> traffic). I am paricularly concerned that the standard for denial has
>>>> been raised to one tht requires Providers to act as judge and jury. I am
>>>> also deeply concrned about a comment that I read that said we are giving
>>>> copyright oners a bypass of the legal due process mechanisms of the DMCA.
>>>> This is vry troubling to me. would be interested in you thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>> On 9/29/2015 9:16 AM, Williams, Todd wroe:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I guess our sub-team will just find out on the 10:00 call wth the
>>>>> rest of the WG...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai3-bonces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Williams Todd
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:47 PM
>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman <kahy(a)kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>
>>>>> ; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.rg
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [renamed] Comment and concerns about revisions
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Kathy. Can I ask what edits to III(C) you¹re concerned about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org]
>>>>> n Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 2:09 PM
>>>>>To: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [renamed] Commets and concerns about revisions
>>>>> Importance: High
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>> Here are my response to the template as it was reviewed on Friday by Sara.
>>>>> Sara's comments are in red, my commets are in green (at least according
>>>>> to my screen). I will now dive into Todd's comments, but I am very, very
>>>>> concerned about Section III, as revised, an I am very certain that NCSG
>>>>> and many other commenters (some following NCSG) would ever have supported
>>>>> Annex E in this reised form. Huge issue to discuss - and looking forward
>>>>> to doing so.
>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Sara's comments in Red
>>>>> Kathy's comments in Green
>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mar Wong
>>>>> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM
>>>>> To: "gnso-ppsi3(a)icann.org"
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friay? (Re:
>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>>> As it looks like several Sub Team members will not be avalable for a
>>>>> Friday call, staff would like to ask if the Sub Team would prefr the
>>>>> following alternative approach:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sub Team members t circulate to this email list their
>>>>> comments/suggestions on the notes and estions from the WG call last week
>>>>> by Friday 25 September, 1900 UTC. Staff ill send out a draft updated
>>>>> Annex E based on the Sub Team¹s input as receied as of that time. Should
>>>>> the Sub Team wish to further discuss the update draft on Monday, the GNSO
>>>>> Secretariat can assist with setting one up at aconvenient time for most
>>>>> unfortunately, I can only be available betwen 1400-1500 UTC on Monday, so
>>>>> if there is a call that results in further updates, I hope one of te Sub
>>>>> Team will not mind taking on that task and circulating the furthe revised
>>>>> draft to the WG before the Tuesday call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternativey, we could still aim for a Friday call as proposed, to
>>>>> discuss any inut that may come in from Sub Team members up to that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> For you convenience, the notes and questions from the WG call last week
>>>>> are reprodced again here:
>>>>>
>>>>> Section I.B.(iii):
>>>>> - Need to discuss retaiing it in some form; costs are real for providers
>>>>> I support this being etained. I do too. We received comments about the
>>>>> costs of the P/P services, and a real concern in keeping these services
>>>>> accessible and affordable. Reasnable costs of requests, many feel should
>>>>> be borne by Requesters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Section II:
>>>>> - Should there be provin for indemnification to provider against misuse
>>>>> of data? (NOTE: unlikely to gain support, so possibly no need to add) I
>>>>> agree that a provision should be added and the main WG can determine if
>>>>> they will support it. +1
>>>>> - A(6)(b)(i): can a requester under the new wording keep/use the data to
>>>>> assocate with other information about th registrant e.g. for future or
>>>>> other requests? Does reverse apply to regisrar/provider i.e. do they keep
>>>>> data that¹s sent to them? Seems we need to clarify ³objectives².
>>>>>
>>>>> Limited to original request? Commenters shared their concern that a) data
>>>>> can be misused by the Requester, including publication (e.g., via blog)
>>>>> and harvesting (e.g., compilation of dat bases).
>>>>> According to comments received, we should
>>>>>
>>>>> a) tightly estrict use of data by Requester by contract [already agreed
>>>>> to, but langage should be tightened in light of comments],
>>>>> b) create a jurisdiction forchallenging the Requester if they violate the
>>>>> terms [now part of Anne 1, but perhaps should be moved here]
>>>>> c) create a way of communicating with ICANN and other Providers if the
>>>>> Reqester violates the terms,
>>>>> d) create a penalty sufficiently severe to deter violations (perhaps a
>>>>> bond).
>>>>>
>>>>> The above are only a first set of ideas, but clearly we want to ensure
>>>>> that the rules e adopt are binding and with real consequences for
>>>>> violation.
>>>>>
>>>> Section III:
>>>>> - III.B: Secure communications may not be as easily or redily done as
>>>>> might be desired (so revision is well-intended but maybe not entirely
>>>>> practical) I would not discount this one at all. There are very safe,
>>>> effective and cheap ways of transferring confidential data over the
>>>> Internet. This is actually critically important; sending personal or
>>>>>ensitive information over open Internet could subject Providers to
>>>>> liability.
>>>>>
>>>>> - 5 calendar days rather than 3 is more reasonable from providers¹
>>>>> perspective Agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> - saying ³encouraged" but not mandating action would nullify need for this
>>>>> section B (NOTE: many people on the call agree with this, one objected)
>>>>> Agree Sorry, but I don¹t see how using the word encouraged nullifies
>>>>> Section B.
>>>>>
>>>>> - **I don¹t agree with the edits to III.C at all. The Provider is not a
>>>>> court of law and should not rendering a legal opinion. The original
>>>>> language was a much moe accurate representation of the most of the
>>>>> comments that we received; and the new language operates against many of
>>>>> the ³due process² protections that thousands of commenters sought to
>>>>> protect.**
>>>>>
>>>>> -III.C.: use some other word than ³surrender², and one that makes clear
>>>>> this does not mean a transfer; in any event, clarify that it's a deletion
>>>>> at the option of a customer (NOTE: there was some discussion over whether
>>>>> providers must be required to offer this option; reminder tha previous WG
>>>>> discussions had led to agreement to NOT make it mandatory due to varying
>>>>> provider practices) Agree; I actually think the word ³surrender² is a
>>>>> pretty good and accurate one; I would keep it. I think it does need to be
>>>>> clarified that a surrender is absoltely not a transfer.
>>>>>
>>>>> - III.C.(v) & (vi): do they overlap? Should they be merged? Leave
>>>>> separate. Let¹s discuss the wording of vi. It¹s getting close, but needs
>>>>> to be tweaked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Annex I:
>>>>> - Keep both options to clarify they are two possible ways of dealing with
>>>>> the issues? Yes. I think the edits as noted make sense deletion of
>>>>> Option 1 and editing of Option 2 (now just Annex I)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know what you think of these two suggestions as soon as you
>>>>> can. Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Mary
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/25/2015 10:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Todd and everyone, thank you so much for the comments and
>>>>>> suggestions. I apologize I was not able to respond earlier as I have been
>>>>>> traveling back to the US from Asia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What staff will do is update the document in accordance with the comments
>>>>>> provided by Sub Team members, with (where possible) notes indicating the
>>>>>> transcript as noted by Todd and other specific pointers to
>>>>>> reasons/justifications/further dicussions. perhaps, with that updated
>>>>>> document and the approach as outlined by Todd below, the Sub Team can
>>>>>> frame the specific points that merit further WG discussion on the Tuesday
>>>>>> call. It will certainly be helpful to get some concrete indication from
>>>>>> the WG as to how they might wish to proceed on a number of these points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>>>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2015 at 23:52
>>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re:
>>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Mary and thanks Sara. My thoughts on where we are as a WG after
>>>>>>> going back through the transcript of the 9-15 call:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I(B)(iii): we didn¹t really substantively discuss this on the
>>>>>>> 9-15 call. Rather, I noted as I was summarizing the document that it
>>>>>>> had been removed because more commenters had opposed it than supported
>>>>>>> it. Transcript at pg. 5. And then James Bladel noted at the end of the
>>>>>>> call that he wanted to put a marker down for further discussion on it.
>>>>>>> Transcript at 27. So I would just propose that we have that as one
>>>>>>> agenda item for the call this coming Tuesday: as a WG, do we want to
>>>>>>> keep I(B)(iii)? And why or why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · II(A)(6)(b) (note that these same points also apply to
>>>>>>> II(B)(7)(c) and II(C)(6)(b)): I would slightly reframe these as part of
>>>>>>> a bigger discussion that the WG should revisit on Tuesday.
>>>>>>> Specifically: we¹ve got the new language in the draft per the comments
>>>>>>> from Cyberinvasion/NCSG. And several people on the call expressed
>>>>>>> concerns over whether that new language was administratively feasible
>>>>>>> and/or enforceable. Transcript at 8-16. So indemnification was floated
>>>>>>> as one potential alternative that might address the points of both the
>>>>>>> Cyberinvasion/NCSG comments AND the feasibility concerns. Transcript at
>>>>>>> 11. So I think the options on the table for the WG are: 1) keep the
>>>>>>> current language as is; 2) replace the current language with some sort
>>>>>>> of indemnification language; or 3) replace the current language with
>>>>>>> something else. I definitely think that a discussion of the pros/cons
>>>>>>> of each of those three options should be another specific agenda item
>>>>>>> for the call on Tuesday. But I don¹t think that we as a sub-team have
>>>>>>> enough guidance/discussion from the WG yet to choose among the three
>>>>>>> options ourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · III(B):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § 5 calendar days: agree. See Transcript at 18.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § Remove reference to secure communications as not administratively
>>>>>>> feasible: agree. See Transcript at 18-19.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § ³Shall² over ³encouraged but not required to²: agree. See Transcript
>>>>>>> at 20-21.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § I would add one additional point not included in your email below. I
>>>>>>> think the agreement on the 9-15 call was that we need to go back to the
>>>>>>> original formulation ³the contact information it has for Customer that
>>>>>>> would ordinarily appear in the publicly accessible Whois for
>>>>>>> non-proxy/privacy registration² instead of the new proposed formulation
>>>>>>> ³name, mailing address, and contact information for service of process
>>>>>>> that it has for Customer.² See Transcript at 19.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · III(C)(iv): the issue here is whether this action (giving up the
>>>>>>> domain name in lieu of disclosure) should be optional (as the original
>>>>>>> language contemplated) or mandatory (as the new language proposed, per
>>>>>>> the comments from Cyberinvasion/NCSG). And in the discussion on the
>>>>>>> 9-15 call we heard from James Bladel that making it mandatory may be
>>>>>>> difficult b/c not all P/P Providers are also going to be Registrars.
>>>>>>> Transcript at 24. I think that¹s a good point, and on the 9-15 call
>>>>>>> James Gannon seemed to express agreement that going back to optional
>>>>>>> (vs. mandatory) was fine. Transcript at 24. So based on that, it looks
>>>>>>> like the WG as a whole is more in support of ³optional² vs. ³mandatory²
>>>>>>> for III(C)(iv), and thus that we should go back to the old language.
>>>>>>> But frankly I personally don¹t have an opinion one way or the other, and
>>>>>>> am happy to discuss further if the WG wants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · III(C)(vi): the question was raised on the 9-15 call how the new
>>>>>>> III(C)(vi) differs in any way or adds anything to III(C)(v). Transcript
>>>>>>> at 23. We got no answer to that question from the proponents of the new
>>>>>>> III(C)(vi), and in fact James Gannon seemed to suggest that upon
>>>>>>> reflection it would be fine to merge the new III(C)(vi) into III(C)(v).
>>>>>>> Transcript at 24. So again, it seems like the WG as a whole is more in
>>>>>>> support of either folding the new III(C)(vi) into III(C)(v) somehow, or
>>>>>>> deleting it altogether. But again, I personally don¹t have an opinion
>>>>>>> yet, and if the proponents of the new III(C)(vi) want to take time on
>>>>>>> the call on Tuesday to answer the question that is on the table (how
>>>>>>> does it add anything to III(C)(v)?), or to otherwise advocate for it,
>>>>>>> that¹s fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Annex One keep both options: agree. See Transcript at 26-27.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 4:50 AM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re:
>>>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks much, Sara!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone it will be great if you can provide your feedback as well,
>>>>>>> perhaps in a similar format as Sara did if that¹s the easiest for you.
>>>>>>> Staff will try to pull a revised document together as best we can with
>>>>>>> whatever input we receive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I should add that I am very sorry, but due to a flight rerouting I can
>>>>>>> no longer make a call on Friday 1900 UTC. Since we haven¹t heard from
>>>>>>> many Sub Team members that they can do a Friday call, I¹m going to
>>>>>>> suggest that staff attempt to revise the document (in the manner noted
>>>>>>> above, in light of comments received by 1900 UTC on Friday). We can then
>>>>>>> circulate the document to the WG on Monday, noting as we did this past
>>>>>>> week for the updated proposed language for Section 1.3.2 (Sub Team 1)
>>>>>>> that it Is not language that has been discussed, much less fully
>>>>>>> supported, by the Sub Team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2015 at 04:48
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>,
>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re:
>>>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I¹ve provided feedback in red below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM
>>>>>>> To: "gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re:
>>>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it looks like several Sub Team members will not be available for a
>>>>>>> Friday call, staff would like to ask if the Sub Team would prefer the
>>>>>>> following alternative approach:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sub Team members to circulate to this email list their
>>>>>>> comments/suggestions on the notes and questions from the WG call last
>>>>>>> week by Friday 25 September, 1900 UTC. Staff will send out a draft
>>>>>>> updated Annex E based on the Sub Team¹s input as received as of that
>>>>>>> time. Should the Sub Team wish to further discuss the updated draft on
>>>>>>> Monday, the GNSO Secretariat can assist with setting one up at a
>>>>>>> convenient time for most unfortunately, I can only be available
>>>>>>> between 1400-1500 UTC on Monday, so if there is a call that results in
>>>>>>> further updates, I hope one of the Sub Team will not mind taking on that
>>>>>>> task and circulating the further revised draft to the WG before the
>>>>>>> Tuesday call.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alternatively, we could still aim for a Friday call as proposed, to
>>>>>>> discuss any input that may come in from Sub Team members up to that
>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For your convenience, the notes and questions from the WG call last week
>>>>>>> are reproduced again here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section I.B.(iii):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Need to discuss retaining it in some form; costs are real for
>>>>>>> providers I support this being retained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section II:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Should there be provision for indemnification to provider against
>>>>>>> misuse of data? (NOTE: unlikely to gain support, so possibly no need to
>>>>>>> add) I agree that a provision should be added and the main WG can
>>>>>>> determine if they will support it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - A(6)(b)(ii): can a requester under the new wording keep/use the data
>>>>>>> to assocate with other information about the registrant e.g. for future
>>>>>>> or other requests? Does reverse apply to registrar/provider i.e. do they
>>>>>>> keep data that¹s sent to them? Seems we need to clarify ³objectives².
>>>>>>> Limited to original request?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section III:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - III.B: Secure communications may not be as easily or readily done as
>>>>>>> might be desired (so revision is well-intended but maybe not entirely
>>>>>>> practical)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - 5 calendar days rather than 3 is more reasonable from providers¹
>>>>>>> perspective Agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - saying ³encouraged" but not mandating action would nullify need for
>>>>>>> this section B (NOTE: many people on the call agree with this, one
>>>>>>> objected) Agree
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - III.C.: use some other word than ³surrender², and one that makes clear
>>>>>>> this does not mean a transfer; in any event, clarify that it's a
>>>>>>> deletion at the option of a customer (NOTE: there was some discussion
>>>>>>> over whether providers must be required to offer this option; reminder
>>>>>>> that previous WG discussions had led to agreement to NOT make it
>>>>>>> mandatory due to varying provider practices) Agree
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - III.C.(v) & (vi): do they overlap? Should they be merged? Leave
>>>>>>> separate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Annex I:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Keep both options to clarify they are two possible ways of dealing
>>>>>>> with the issues? Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think of these two suggestions as soon as
>>>>>>> you can. Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <
>>>>>>> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 23:56
>>>>>>> To: " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re:
>>>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Holly,
>>>>>>> Were you able to attend this call? I am sorry, but I cannot see your
>>>>>>> text in the email below :-(.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for me, I am very unlikely to be able to attend a call at this time
>>>>>>> tomorrow. Can we try for Monday?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 9:58 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 Sep 2015, at 5:14 am, Williams, Todd <
>>>>>>> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Works for me. Thanks Mary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:10 PM
>>>>>>> Cc: <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] PROPOSAL: Sub Team 3 call this Friday? (Re:
>>>>>>> Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone can we do a call this Friday 25 September at 1900 UTC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 23:12
>>>>>>> Cc: " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sub Team call? (Re: Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks very much, Todd! Everyone can we ask that you let us know your
>>>>>>> availability for a Sub Team call at any of the times indicated by Todd,
>>>>>>> below? Thank you all!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd" < <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 23:00
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Sub Team call? (Re: Follow up from WG call yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you Mary. I think a call is a good idea. Friday at or after 1900
>>>>>>> UTC is better for me. Though if we want to do tomorrow, I could do
>>>>>>> 1400-1500 UTC or 1600-1800 UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:05 AM
>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Sub Team call? (Re: Follow up from WG call
>>>>>>> yesterday)
>>>>>>> Importance: High
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello again everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Following a discussion with the WG co-chairs yesterday, we would like to
>>>>>>> suggest that the Sub Team consider doing a call this week to review the
>>>>>>> notes from the last WG call (see below), with the goal of presenting
>>>>>>> recommendations and/or alternative proposals to the full WG for
>>>>>>> discussion next week (i.e. Tuesday 29 September).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are able to do a call this week, would either Wednesday (at or
>>>>>>> after 1400 UTC) or Friday (at or after 1900 UTC) work for you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 16:27
>>>>>>> Cc: " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Follow up from WG call yesterday
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everybody,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are the notes I captured from the WG discussion yesterday; we
>>>>>>> should have the full transcript and MP3 recording uploaded by tomorrow
>>>>>>> at the latest but I thought these notes might be helpful, at least as an
>>>>>>> initial framework for the next Sub Team discussion:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section I.B.(iii):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Need to discuss retaining it in some form; costs are real for
>>>>>>> providers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section II:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Should there be provision for indemnification to provider against
>>>>>>> misuse of data? (NOTE: unlikely to gain support, so possibly no need to
>>>>>>> add)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - A(6)(b)(ii): can a requester under the new wording keep/use the data
>>>>>>> to assocate with other information about the registrant e.g. for future
>>>>>>> or other requests? Does reverse apply to registrar/provider ie do they
>>>>>>> keep data that's sent to them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section III:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - III.B: Secure communications may not be as easily or readily done as
>>>>>>> might be desired (so revision is well-intended but maybe not entirely
>>>>>>> practical)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - 5 calendar days rather than 3 is more reasonable from providers'
>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - saying "encouraged" but not mandating action would nullify need for
>>>>>>> this section B (NOTE: many people on the call agree with this, one
>>>>>>> objected)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - III.C.: use some other word than ³surrender², and one that makes clear
>>>>>>> this does not mean a transfer; in any event, clarify that it's a
>>>>>>> deletion at the option of a customer (NOTE: there was some discussion
>>>>>>> over whether providers must be required to offer this option; reminder
>>>>>>> that previous WG discussions had led to agreement to NOT make it
>>>>>>> mandatory due to varying provider practices)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - III.C.(v) & (vi): do they overlap? Should they be merged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Annex I:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Keep both options to clarify they are two possible ways of dealing
>>>>>>> with the issues?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you like to do a Sub Team call to walk through these suggestions,
>>>>>>> or should we continue to discuss first by email? I will check with the
>>>>>>> WG co-chairs when they would like a revised, more finalized, set of
>>>>>>> recommendations to be presented to the WG (if possible).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd" < <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 21:19
>>>>>>> To: Holly Raiche < <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>
>>>>>>> h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>, Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
>>>>>>> mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Holly. As I mentioned when I circulated the draft (see attached
>>>>>>> email):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ³for Sara, Kathy, and the others on our sub-team who have argued that
>>>>>>> ³verifiable evidence² means something higher let us know how you would
>>>>>>> further edit Sections II(A), (B), and (C) to meet whatever ³higher²
>>>>>>> standard you have in mind.²
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Holly Raiche
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:43 AM
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it does help - particularly since I recognise my words in the
>>>>>>> extract. What it suggests, however, is acceptance that the elements a
>>>>>>> requested gives to a provider amounts to the standard of evidence that
>>>>>>> is verifiable¹ - as described below. My question to the group,
>>>>>>> therefore, is whether the addition of those words has been agreed upon
>>>>>>> by the group. If not, the words should not be there; their mere
>>>>>>> presence suggests agreement, and puts the onus on those of us who don¹t
>>>>>>> agree to argue for the removal of words that were not agreed to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry to be pedantic, folks, but the presence of those words suggests a
>>>>>>> level of agreement that I am not aware of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 Sep 2015, at 10:27 pm, Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
>>>>>>> mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Holly and everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Todd noted in his report to the full WG last week on behalf of the
>>>>>>> Sub Team, the document doesn¹t represent the finished consensus product
>>>>>>> of the Sub Team but rather is being presented as a tool for further WG
>>>>>>> discussion. The document includes certain revisions that were added to
>>>>>>> more fully reflect the comments that were received, and as such could be
>>>>>>> one form of a revised Annex E however, as Todd mentioned, it isn¹t the
>>>>>>> agreed result of the Sub Team¹s substantive analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, in the summary document that was also sent out in tandem,
>>>>>>> here is how the Sub Team¹s discussion on the question of ³verifiable
>>>>>>> evidence² was presented:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Further, the Save Domain Privacy petition, which had 10,042 signatories
>>>>>>> and also included [x] number of additional statements, argued that
>>>>>>> ³privacy providers should not be forced to reveal my private information
>>>>>>> without verifiable evidence of wrongdoing.² We as a sub-team could not
>>>>>>> agree on how to interpret ³verifiable evidence,² and will leave that
>>>>>>> discussion to the larger WG. Some on the sub-team viewed these comments
>>>>>>> as supporting Annex E because the requirements in Annex E as currently
>>>>>>> formulated can be interpreted as constituting verifiable evidence, while
>>>>>>> others on the sub-team interpret verifiable evidence¹ as requiring a
>>>>>>> court order and therefore not in support of Annex E. However, some also
>>>>>>> noted that the word ³verifiable² does not imply that the evidence has
>>>>>>> been tested through a legal process; rather, it simply points toward
>>>>>>> requiring that evidence provided must be credible/provable enough so
>>>>>>> that, in a legal proceeding, it would withstand legal scrutiny, but does
>>>>>>> not necessarily imply that there must have been a court process in all
>>>>>>> cases."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this help?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Holly Raiche < <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>
>>>>>>> h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 20:18
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: "Williams, Todd" < <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>, Sara Bockey < <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> sbockey(a)godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I apologise for not participating over the past week - I¹ve been away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question is, next to the headings on request for templates, the words
>>>>>>> after requester provides to the service provider, the words verifiable
>>>>>>> evidence of wrong doing, including¹.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What that implies is that the following text lists what would constitute
>>>>>>> verifiable evidence¹ and indeed, the word including¹ suggests that
>>>>>>> other elements can also constitute verifiable evidence¹. Has the group
>>>>>>> agreed on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My impression was that we had not yet agreed what the term meant, but
>>>>>>> that it must be evidence of a very high standard - impliedly something
>>>>>>> that could be used in court processes. I am not convinced that the
>>>>>>> elements listed under Heading II meet that test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So Mary, others, was this agreed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 Sep 2015, at 7:11 am, Sara Bockey < <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> sbockey(a)godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:18 PM
>>>>>>> To: Sara Bockey, Mary Wong, " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Sara. I¹m still confused. In order:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I still don¹t see any mention in the CDT comment re: removal of
>>>>>>> alleged infringing materials in lieu of disclosure. I do see support
>>>>>>> for the additional language that the attached draft adds to III(C)(vii)
>>>>>>> about ³specific information, facts and/or circumstances showing that
>>>>>>> disclosure to the Requester will endanger the safety of the Customer²
>>>>>>> (in fact, that language was added specifically to capture the point of
>>>>>>> the paragraph from the CDT comment that you¹ve quoted below). But that
>>>>>>> is completely different from what you¹ve added, for which I cannot find
>>>>>>> any support in any of the public comments. I also don¹t understand your
>>>>>>> claim that ³rights and actions available to the registrant are sorely
>>>>>>> lacking in Annex E² given that Annex E explicitly contemplates notice
>>>>>>> to the registrant and contemplates input from the registrant in Sections
>>>>>>> III(A), III(C)(ii), III(C)(iii), III(C)(iv), III(C)(vi), and
>>>>>>> III(C)(vii).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · The portion of the NCSG comment that you¹ve cited addressed the
>>>>>>> appeals mechanism of Section III(F), not the reconsideration mechanism
>>>>>>> of III(E). In fact, the attached draft removes the appeal mechanism of
>>>>>>> III(F) precisely because of the language that you quoted below from the
>>>>>>> NCSG comment (among others). But that language has nothing to do with
>>>>>>> III(E).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I don¹t understand what the comments from Key Systems, Ralf
>>>>>>> Haring, or Adam Creighton have to do with III(E) which again, is only
>>>>>>> talking about a request for reconsideration. Moreover, the Key Systems
>>>>>>> comment is simply inaccurate: the Disclosure Framework never ³assume[d]
>>>>>>> disclosure if certain process steps are followed regardless of the
>>>>>>> merits of the complaint² a point that the attached revised draft now
>>>>>>> makes explicit in the preamble (³by not requiring that disclosure
>>>>>>> automatically follow any given request²).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to reiterate: I¹ve always viewed our job in the two documents that
>>>>>>> our sub-team has drafted as being to accurately report to the larger WG
>>>>>>> what the comments that we¹ve reviewed say. Which means two things: 1)
>>>>>>> we have to be true to the comments, and not reinterpret them to say
>>>>>>> something they don¹t; and 2) we have to reserve our advocacy for or
>>>>>>> against certain points from those comments for the larger WG discussion.
>>>>>>> That¹s what I tried to do in the attached. So if you want to argue
>>>>>>> against Annex E, that¹s fine do so on the call tomorrow. In fact, I¹m
>>>>>>> planning to argue against several of the proposed changes that are
>>>>>>> included in the attached. But I still included those proposed changes
>>>>>>> in the attached draft, and accurately noted which comments they were
>>>>>>> based on because to do otherwise would be misleading to the larger WG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Sara Bockey [ <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:50 PM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd < <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>; Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
>>>>>>> mary.wong(a)icann.org>; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Cc: Sara Bockey < <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> sbockey(a)godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please see my comments inline below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disclaimer: I do not support Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 11:57 AM
>>>>>>> To: Sara Bockey, Mary Wong, " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two quick questions on this as I was getting ready for our call
>>>>>>> tomorrow:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Your addition of a new III(C)(v) stating ³the Customer has
>>>>>>> removed the infringing trademark and/or copyright material in lieu of
>>>>>>> disclosure² what public comment that we reviewed was that change based
>>>>>>> on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on CDT¹s comment re registrant¹s ability to respond to allegations
>>>>>>> removal of alleged infringing materials in lieu of disclosure would
>>>>>>> fall into this category. Rights and actions available to the registrant
>>>>>>> are sorely lacking in Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mere allegation of infringement or illegality is insufficient cause for
>>>>>>> a provider to disclose a customer¹s data to a third party; it is
>>>>>>> frequently trivially easy for a party abusing the system to allege
>>>>>>> frivolous or nonexistent civil claims to justify a demand for personal
>>>>>>> information. Registrants should have the ability and opportunity to
>>>>>>> respond to the allegations and to the dangers to which they, their
>>>>>>> families, and their organizations might be subjected, and to obtain
>>>>>>> counsel on these matters.
>>>>>>> Revealing a customer¹s registration data should only occur when there
>>>>>>> has been a substantial
>>>>>>> showing of likelihood of abuse and only after due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2)Can you show me where in the NCSG comment (here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfBoyWzlMS
>>>>>>> 3q.pdf>
>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfBoyWzlMS3
>>>>>>> q.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ) the NCSG argued for the addition of the clause ³in instances where
>>>>>>> Requester has discovered and submitted additional evidence or
>>>>>>> information which warrants consideration² to III(E)? You noted that
>>>>>>> this change was based on the NCSG comment, but I can¹t find anything in
>>>>>>> that comment that mentions III(E) though admittedly I could have
>>>>>>> missed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on NCSG comment re unlimited appeals .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under no circumstances should Intellectual Property Interests, Law
>>>>>>> Enforcement or any other Requestors have unlimited appeals to third
>>>>>>> party dispute resolution providers. It will be far more than an
>>>>>>> implementation detail to define this appellate procedure but a whole
>>>>>>> new arbitration forum of its own will need to be created and a UDRP
>>>>>>> process undiscussed and unplanned by this Working Group. All
>>>>>>> deliberation about appeal mechanisms should be set aside at this time.
>>>>>>> Any Intellectual Property owner or group that feels a Provider is
>>>>>>> routinely denying appropriate requests will have full access to the
>>>>>>> growing and increasingly responsive ICANN Compliance Team which will
>>>>>>> be accessible to Complainers through the accreditation process now being
>>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Key Systems¹ comment would also support this addition:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do not support the proposed Disclosure Framework as it assumes
>>>>>>> disclosure if certain process steps are followed regardless of the
>>>>>>> merits of the complaint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As well as Ralf Haring¹s comment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Disagree with proposal that] Providers can be forced to give your
>>>>>>> private contact details to anyone complaining that your site violates
>>>>>>> their copyright or trademark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Adam Creighton¹s comment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the language is too loose, and opens individuals up to frivolous
>>>>>>> litigation from IP rights owners and third-party agencies whose
>>>>>>> contracted relationship is to expand IP brand presence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Sara Bockey [ <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 4:40 PM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd < <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>; Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
>>>>>>> mary.wong(a)icann.org>; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Cc: Sara Bockey < <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> sbockey(a)godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As promised, attached is a redline of my input to the proposed changes
>>>>>>> Todd drafted. Todd was pretty thorough and had included several
>>>>>>> revisions I had in mind based on the comments so my edits are limited to
>>>>>>> a few comments and additions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sara
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Williams, Todd"
>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:58 PM
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong, " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org"
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team
>>>>>>> Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As promised on our call, attached is a redline of the Draft Disclosure
>>>>>>> Framework, with annotations noting the source of each proposed change.
>>>>>>> Several notes as you review:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I know that we¹ve debated whether ³verifiable evidence² means
>>>>>>> more than what is currently in Sections II(A), (B), and (C). You¹ll see
>>>>>>> that I¹ve added the exact wording from the savedomainprivacy.org
>>>>>>> <http://savedomainprivacy.org/> petition ³verifiable evidence of
>>>>>>> wrongdoing² to those sections. I think that is a good fit, as of
>>>>>>> right now. But for Sara, Kathy, and the others on our sub-team who have
>>>>>>> argued that ³verifiable evidence² means something higher let us know
>>>>>>> how you would further edit Sections II(A), (B), and (C) to meet whatever
>>>>>>> ³higher² standard you have in mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · You¹ll note that I briefly added a reference to the comment from
>>>>>>> Com Laude (which I think we had omitted from our summary). And that I
>>>>>>> did not reference the comment from Aaron Myers (which we¹ve referenced
>>>>>>> in our summary, but which doesn¹t really offer any edits to the
>>>>>>> Disclosure Framework). Otherwise I think I¹ve covered everything that
>>>>>>> we reviewed in terms of edits to the Disclosure Framework though let
>>>>>>> me know if anybody sees anything I¹ve missed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Just to be clear for the record: the attached is a revised
>>>>>>> Disclosure Framework that illustrates and attempts to account for all of
>>>>>>> the proposed edits that we received from the public comments, for the
>>>>>>> larger Working Group¹s reference. But it is not how I would have edited
>>>>>>> the Disclosure Framework. In fact, I¹ll reserve the right to argue
>>>>>>> against some of these proposed edits, once we get into the larger WG
>>>>>>> discussion. Just wanted to make that clear so that nobody thinks these
>>>>>>> edits are mine (since I¹m the one who drafted the document).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Todd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Mary Wong
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 6:59 AM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai3] Additional Comments for Sub Team Consideration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello again everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you look through the proposed revised summary document (below), you
>>>>>>> may also wish to consider whether some of the additional comments that
>>>>>>> were included in Part 4 of the overall WG Public Comment Review Tool
>>>>>>> might be useful such that additional notes or recommendations can be
>>>>>>> made, or existing language amended. For your convenience I¹ve extracted
>>>>>>> ten such comments which, while not sent in as specific responses to the
>>>>>>> Preliminary Recommendations and Annex E that this Sub Team is analysing,
>>>>>>> nonetheless seem relevant generally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I attach these ten comments in tabular form to this email, and welcome
>>>>>>> the Sub Team¹s discussion and comments on whether any of them ought to
>>>>>>> be considered as well as your thoughts on the summary document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the Sub Team is due to report back to the full WG next Tuesday,
>>>>>>> please let me know also if you think a call before then amongst the Sub
>>>>>>> Team members might be needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Mary Wong < <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, August 31, 2015 at 15:46
>>>>>>> To: " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone, in an attempt to facilitate further dialogue and,
>>>>>>> hopefully, consensus on a way forward on this issue, I¹ve taken the
>>>>>>> liberty of amending Kathy¹s document to take into account Holly¹s
>>>>>>> comments as well as to attempt to place certain comments (e.g. the
>>>>>>> ICA¹s, EasyDNS¹) more specifically within a particular category. I
>>>>>>> attach both a redlined and clean copy of this latest updated version
>>>>>>> (with the clean copy including yellow highlighted portions where the
>>>>>>> most significant language changes are suggested). I have not yet broken
>>>>>>> the comments down further into the registrant/provider distinction that
>>>>>>> Todd noted, but can of course do so if this is viewed as useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that this is not a staff position that is being suggested,
>>>>>>> but merely an attempt to document where the Sub Team¹s discussion seems
>>>>>>> to be at the moment. I hope this is helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong(a)icann.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Williams, Todd" <
>>>>>>> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, August 28, 2015 at 22:40
>>>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman < <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>
>>>>>>> kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, " <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy. I both agree and disagree with what you¹ve said below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I strongly agree that ³the key is the quotes that have come out of the
>>>>>>> comments.² I¹ve said repeatedly that our job as a sub-team is not to
>>>>>>> advocate, but to simply present the comments to the WG in as accurate
>>>>>>> and objective a way as possible. To the extent that we then want to
>>>>>>> advocate for our own positions as part of the larger WG, we can do so.
>>>>>>> Moreover, part of the reason why I feel so strongly that ³the key is the
>>>>>>> quotes² is that I think we have to take the comments at face value, and
>>>>>>> then debate as WG whether we can reach consensus on what they actually
>>>>>>> say not on what we want them to say. That¹s why I felt so strongly
>>>>>>> that ³verifiable evidence² should not be reinterpreted to mean a court
>>>>>>> order. It is also what animated my email exchange with Stephanie in the
>>>>>>> larger WG (attached).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if we are in fact faithful to what the comments actually say, then
>>>>>>> it is a mistake to lump all of the ³court order² comments into one
>>>>>>> monolithic group. I¹ve given some examples of substantive differences
>>>>>>> below. But let me give another one: if we look at what they actually
>>>>>>> say, the ³court order² comments are very much divided based on whether
>>>>>>> the comment came from an individual registrant or from a
>>>>>>> registrar/provider. Which of course makes sense: a registrant will tend
>>>>>>> to look at these issues very differently than a provider. Specifically,
>>>>>>> as you correctly note in our draft, the vast majority of comments
>>>>>>> (11,000+) from individuals/registrants said that ³Everyone deserves the
>>>>>>> right to privacy² and that ³No one¹s personal information should be
>>>>>>> revealed without a court order, regardless of whether the request comes
>>>>>>> from a private individual or law enforcement agency.² And of course, we
>>>>>>> can understand why registrants would argue that their right to privacy
>>>>>>> is inviolate, and that it should never be abrogated unless a court
>>>>>>> blesses it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But note that the registrar/provider comments in the ³court order² group
>>>>>>> do NOT say the same thing. Rather, they are focused on retaining their
>>>>>>> discretion as to when to disclose or publish, and do not want an
>>>>>>> accreditation standard that requires them to do so absent a court order.
>>>>>>> Hence my point about the word ³require² in the Blacknight comment. See
>>>>>>> also the Key Systems comment: ³Disclosure or publication should never be
>>>>>>> the automatic result of a process, but rather remain an option of the
>>>>>>> provider.² And others. So one key distinction b/w the
>>>>>>> registrant/individual comments and the registrar/provider comments is
>>>>>>> that the registrant comments do not want disclosure or publication EVER
>>>>>>> unless following a court order, while the provider comments want a court
>>>>>>> order first if SOMEBODY ELSE wants them to disclose or publish, but not
>>>>>>> if THEY want to disclose or publish. And we can understand why, given
>>>>>>> how many provider Terms of Service include language that gives them
>>>>>>> discretion to basically turn off a P/P Service whenever they want (for
>>>>>>> example, if the registrant stops paying them), without any kind of
>>>>>>> process beforehand (due process or otherwise). See below (among many
>>>>>>> others):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Blacknight: <https://www.blacknight.com/acceptable-usage.html>
>>>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/acceptable-usage.html.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Whoisprivacy.com <http://whoisprivacy.com/> , Ltd.:
>>>>>>> <http://www.whoisprivacyservices.com.au/terms.htm>
>>>>>>> http://www.whoisprivacyservices.com.au/terms.htm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · EuroDNS S.A.:
>>>>>>> <https://www.eurodns.com/terms-and-conditions/whois-privacy>
>>>>>>> https://www.eurodns.com/terms-and-conditions/whois-privacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · 1&1 Internet, Inc.: <http://www.1and1.com/TcPdr?__lf=Static>
>>>>>>> http://www.1and1.com/TcPdr?__lf=Static.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Domain.com <http://domain.com/> , LLC:
>>>>>>> <http://www.domain.com/legal/legal_domain.bml#domain-privacy-service>
>>>>>>> http://www.domain.com/legal/legal_domain.bml#domain-privacy-service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · DomainIt, Inc.: <https://www.domainit.com/terms.html>
>>>>>>> https://www.domainit.com/terms.html.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Moniker Privacy Services, LLC:
>>>>>>> http://www.moniker.com/legal/registration-agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we can understand why providers would not want an accreditation
>>>>>>> regime that requires them to get a court order before they turn off a
>>>>>>> registrant¹s privacy service (and to rewrite their Terms of Service
>>>>>>> accordingly). In fact, Volker has already admitted both on the email
>>>>>>> list (see attached) and on our weekly calls (see transcript of 8-11-15
>>>>>>> call) that such an accreditation requirement would have such a ³severe
>>>>>>> impact² on the economic realities of providers (in other words, would
>>>>>>> cost them so much money), that they could never agree to such a
>>>>>>> requirement. But of course, if I¹m an individual registrant concerned
>>>>>>> about my privacy and due process, then I could care less about the
>>>>>>> ³economic realities² of providers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point is only that we can¹t gloss over that important distinction
>>>>>>> (and others) by lumping all of the ³court order² comments together as if
>>>>>>> they were coming from the same place and advocating for the same thing.
>>>>>>> They¹re not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman [ <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>
>>>>>>> mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 8:44 AM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd < <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> Todd.Williams(a)turner.com>; gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Todd,
>>>>>>> The entire WG is now looking to our comments to show what supports Annex
>>>>>>> E (deemed generally to be a lower standard than court order) and Court
>>>>>>> Order (deemed to be a much higher standard than Annex E). What we are
>>>>>>> talking about is the floor, not the ceiling, right, for accreditation?
>>>>>>> Namely, what is the minimum requirement for disclosure of proxied data?
>>>>>>> I see it as really quite binary - up or down (Annex E or court order for
>>>>>>> private requests to p/p providers) - but I can understand if the subteam
>>>>>>> thinks differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I think is key is the quotes that have come out of the comments.
>>>>>>> Provided we keep the quotes, I'm good.I can rework, but not until end of
>>>>>>> weekend or early next week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · When you say that ³in the weeks since the original draft, I
>>>>>>> think the discussion has evolved from a multipart one . . . to a binary
>>>>>>> one² what are you basing that on? Can you point to any transcripts or
>>>>>>> emails? I certainly don¹t remember being part of those discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Moreover, had I been involved in those discussions, I would have
>>>>>>> objected, because I think that lumping the comments together in the way
>>>>>>> that you have, and ignoring the categories that our sub-team had already
>>>>>>> agreed upon, does a disservice to the nuance of the comments from
>>>>>>> Google, ICA, EasyDNS, and the like. For example, a UDRP panel is not a
>>>>>>> court. I think that is an important distinction between Categories 2
>>>>>>> and 3. And the fact that the ICA and EasyDNS comments would allow for
>>>>>>> ³some exceptions for cases of abuse² is another important distinction
>>>>>>> that the broader WG ought to know about. I¹m fine if we want to include
>>>>>>> some sort of introductory sentence saying that __ comments opposed the
>>>>>>> basic premise of Annex E (which we do). But to then argue that those
>>>>>>> comments are monolithic, or that they all oppose the premise of Annex E
>>>>>>> in the same way, is not accurate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I simply understood the ISPCP comment to mean that allegations
>>>>>>> of infringement should not always be automatically taken as true (³not
>>>>>>> indisputably wronged parties²), and that some independent adjudicator
>>>>>>> (meaning, somebody other than the IP owner who is making the allegation)
>>>>>>> should evaluate the merits of those claims. Annex E as currently
>>>>>>> drafted provides for that. But I also don¹t think that you or I should
>>>>>>> necessarily be the ones to decide this argument. Why can¹t we just say
>>>>>>> that we weren¹t quite sure what to do with this one (as was true with
>>>>>>> some others), and take it to the larger WG for their consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I think you¹re missing my point on Blacknight. My point is that
>>>>>>> the key word is ³require.² As I mentioned below, nothing in Annex E
>>>>>>> ³requires² Blacknight to disclose (merely to give reasons if they refuse
>>>>>>> to disclose). So I don¹t see anything in their comment that is
>>>>>>> inconsistent with Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · On the APC comment: I don¹t disagree with you that the comment
>>>>>>> has important value for the WG. But that¹s not the same thing as saying
>>>>>>> that it advocates for disclosure only following a court order. It
>>>>>>> doesn¹t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman [ <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>
>>>>>>> mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:59 PM
>>>>>>> To: Williams, Todd <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>
>>>>>>> <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com> <mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com> ;
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Todd,
>>>>>>> Tx you for the close read. In the weeks since the original draft, I
>>>>>>> think the discussion has evolved from a multipart one - such as the 5
>>>>>>> categories originally created in Section III -- to a more binary one: do
>>>>>>> commenters support a system such as Annex E or do they want court order
>>>>>>> prior to the reveal of the data?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With apologies, I don't understand the differentiation into Categories
>>>>>>> 2, 3 and 4 in Section III. Some parties may have mentioned UDRP, and
>>>>>>> others not, but that does not take away from the totality of the
>>>>>>> commenters who want court orders -- or want court orders for certain
>>>>>>> categories of requests such as privacy requests to p/p providers from
>>>>>>> third parties, such as intellectual property requests. To divide up
>>>>>>> these comments really dilutes the argument, I think, as these commenters
>>>>>>> favor court order for the key issue we are evaluating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I would recommend keeping Google, Endurance, Wheelhouse, ICA and Easy
>>>>>>> DNS together in Category 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ISPCP Constituency Comments call for an "independent adjudicator" to
>>>>>>> "determine the merits of their ("intellectual property rights holders")
>>>>>>> claims. I thought that was pretty clear reference to a judge or
>>>>>>> magistrate, but if you see it differently, please let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re Blacknight, on the issue of Annex E or court order, the comments
>>>>>>> appear to come down squarely for court orders. For LEA, it recommends a
>>>>>>> different approach, but there is no reference to Annex E, only "a
>>>>>>> request from law enforcement, Irish consumer protection agencies or a
>>>>>>> court order with jurisdiction over us." The intellectual property
>>>>>>> requests falls into the final category -- court order -- and as such,
>>>>>>> this comment would be properly listed here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re: APC, Alliance for Progressive Communications, you are right that I
>>>>>>> missed a step in putting this comment forward. The question this quote
>>>>>>> addresses, and it is a valuable one, is court orders and jurisdiction --
>>>>>>> from which jurisdiction are court orders are valid? Here APC provides
>>>>>>> us with unique insight, very worth passing onto the WG: that release of
>>>>>>> domain name data in some countries has and will continue to result in
>>>>>>> arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc. of "domain owners" who are
>>>>>>> "exercising activism" online. This is a very tough issue that we
>>>>>>> discussed in the WG, and APC is on the ground in Africa and near the
>>>>>>> Middle East to see abuses first hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the WG explores the issue of court orders, the next question is: from
>>>>>>> what jurisdiction should/must p/p provider accept a court order? The APC
>>>>>>> comment reminds us that what is clearly legal in one country is
>>>>>>> punishable in another -- and that jurisdictional issues for court orders
>>>>>>> are a key part of what we (the WG) have to keep in mind. If you would
>>>>>>> like to create a introductory paragraph, or new section, for this type
>>>>>>> of discussion, I would certainly welcome it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy. One minor formatting suggestion:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the spectrum that we outline on page 5 (Categories 1-4) is
>>>>>>> useful, because not all of these comments are advocating for the same
>>>>>>> thing. Yet the quotes that we¹ve added from the comments are all
>>>>>>> included under Category 2, which is somewhat confusing. I would suggest
>>>>>>> that we move:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · The quotes from the comments from Google, Endurance
>>>>>>> International Group, and Jeff Wheelhouse to the paragraph on Category 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · The quotes from the comments from ICA and Easy DNS to the
>>>>>>> paragraph on Category 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I saw that you added quotes from the comments from ISPCPC,
>>>>>>> Blacknight, and the Association for Progressive Communications, even
>>>>>>> though those weren¹t in our initial summary and don¹t specifically
>>>>>>> mention Annex E. My thoughts on each:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Here¹s the full ISPCPC quote, from a section titled ³Regarding
>>>>>>> LEA definitions & differentiations²: ³While we respect the desire to
>>>>>>> utilize the official ICANN definition of Law Enforcement Agent (LEA), we
>>>>>>> acknowledge that intellectual property rights holders and private anti
>>>>>>> abuse organizations should be treated as complainants and not
>>>>>>> indisputably wronged parties, and accordingly an independent adjudicator
>>>>>>> should determine the merits of their claim before rights that users
>>>>>>> would otherwise have are abrogated by reason of those lawyers' claims.²
>>>>>>> To be honest, I¹m not really sure what to make of that (especially given
>>>>>>> that it is included under a heading about LEA definitions). But I¹m not
>>>>>>> sure that we can assume that it means disclosure only following a court
>>>>>>> order. Why would Annex E as currently drafted not satisfy the standard
>>>>>>> of ³an independent adjudicator should determine the merits of their
>>>>>>> claim²?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I also don¹t understand why we would think that the Blacknight
>>>>>>> quote is incompatible with Annex E. All it says is that ³any policy
>>>>>>> that would require us to divulge our client¹s information in the absence
>>>>>>> of either a request from law enforcement, Irish consumer protection
>>>>>>> agencies or a court order with jurisdiction over us is incompatible with
>>>>>>> Irish law.² But Annex E as currently drafted doesn¹t require Blacknight
>>>>>>> to divulge its client¹s information. Rather, it gives Blacknight the
>>>>>>> discretion to make that decision; all it requires is that Blacknight
>>>>>>> provide the complainant with its reasoning if it chooses to refuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · I don¹t understand why we¹d include a quote from the APC comment
>>>>>>> in this section, given that it does not mention Annex E, and that it
>>>>>>> expressly endorsed the NCSG comment (see:
>>>>>>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfwOfjgYV0
>>>>>>> i9.pdf>
>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfwOfjgYV0i
>>>>>>> 9.pdf), which we analyze in the previous section that supports the
>>>>>>> premise of Annex E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: <mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai3-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:17 PM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Revised Subteam 3 Summary with Overview
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> Tx to Darcy for the Overview work. I've taken her draft and added to it
>>>>>>> my work on Section III as promised on the last call. I added more quotes
>>>>>>> from commenters seeking court orders and the use of existing legal due
>>>>>>> process mechanisms prior to disclosure of proxied data. There was a wide
>>>>>>> array of comments on this issue, including from ISPs, individuals,
>>>>>>> organizations, and companies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used Darcy's version as the base. Both her edits (Overview) and my
>>>>>>> edits (Section III) are shown in "track changes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, all!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In follow up to our call earlier this week, attached is an updated
>>>>>>> Sub-team 3 analysis draft with the overview added at the beginning. I
>>>>>>> redlined my changes so you can clearly see what I¹ve done. I hope you
>>>>>>> find that I present a clear and accurate overview.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also made some minor revisions to Section V (³Comments that did not
>>>>>>> fit neatly into any of the above categories²) that I realized after
>>>>>>> submitting my original draft of that section made a bit more sense.
>>>>>>> Again, I¹ve redlined the changes so you can easily see what changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darcy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Revised Illustrative Disclosure Framework for Intellectual Property
>>>>>>> Righ...[2][1].docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> <mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai3(a)icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
>
3
2