Thanks Mary.  (2) and (3) sound good to me.  On (1): I don’t necessarily have an opinion – I think it’s fine as is but am OK with the proposed changes that you outlined.  Thanks.

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 1:29 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com>; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org; Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>; Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com>; Don M. Blumenthal <dmb@donblumenthal.com>; Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

Hello everyone,

 

Just a couple of queries for the Sub Team and WG co-chairs:

 

(1) In the introductory paragraph, the document contains this statement: "Once sufficient time has passed after implementation of these accreditation standards, the Working Group suggests a review to determine whether these three objectives have been met and fairly balanced.” In Dublin, the WG had discussed the Sub Team’s idea that this should be on a two-year time frame. I have two questions as a result: (i) does the Sub Team prefer to keep the current language; and (ii) should this be moved to become a specific additional recommendation in the main body of the report?

 

(2) On Option 1 & Option 2 – as this will be the WG’s Final Report, it seems to staff that it would be preferable for the WG to make one specific recommendation. As the Sub Team favors Option 2 and there has been no opposition from the rest of the WG as far as we can tell, we suggest simply making Option 2 the single mechanism (and amending the language in that part of the framework accordingly).

 

Finally, there are a few formatting and typographical matters (e.g. capitalizing Trademark and Copyright Holder in some parts and not others) that we can clean up for inclusion in the Final Report document that will go out later today.

 

Thank you to everyone for all the hard work!

 

Cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4889

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

 

 

From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>
Date: Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:45
To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, "Don M. Blumenthal" <dmb@donblumenthal.com>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

Tx for the clean version, Todd. It looks good to me -- does anyone else have any last edits, suggestions or comments?
Best,
Kathy

On 11/20/2015 10:37 AM, Williams, Todd wrote:

Thanks Kathy.  Clean version attached for everybody to review (I think the default markup shows the comments, but if you just switch to “no markup” you can read the clean version). 

To follow-up on Kathy’s point about the context for I(B): going with Darcy’s (and my) suggestion formulation of “Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from . . .” makes 1(B) consistent with 1(C) and 1(D), which begin the same way.  

One quick formatting point: as currently drafted, we still have III(G), which notes that the Annex includes two options, and then the Annex itself still includes the two options – even though it makes clear that we’re recommending going with the second.  I think that’s fine – it “shows our work” in a sense.  But if anybody thinks the Final Report would be clearer if we just removed Option One altogether, and removed any discussion of “options” at all – feel free.

Thanks all.
Todd.

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:50 PM
To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org; Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>; Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com>; Don M. Blumenthal <dmb@donblumenthal.com>; Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

Hi Todd and All,
I think it would help all of us to look at the language in context. I can do this by Noon tomorrow (Fri) and cleanup our edits.
Best,
Kathy

On 11/19/2015 4:29 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

Great!  Not having heard any objection, we’ll clean this up for inclusion in the Final Report.  One quick question as we do: I saw that on Page 1, Darcy noted that we never picked b/w the two possible formulations of language to begin I(B):

·        “Nothing in this document prevents a Provider from.….”

·        “Provider is encouraged, but not required, to……..”

Presumably this is not a big deal since it never really came up in our discussions.  But we’ve got to pick one, and in her email (attached) Darcy suggested Option (1).  I agree.  Any dissents?

From: Williams, Todd
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:10 PM
To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org; Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>; Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com>; Don M. Blumenthal <dmb@donblumenthal.com>; Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

Sub-team 3:

Following the WG call today, Kathy and I got together to finalize the language for Option 2 in the Annex, and to update the three additions to Sections II(A)(6), II(B)(7), and II(C)(6) accordingly to more accurately cross-reference the new language from Option 2.  See attached.  Please let us know by COB tomorrow if you have any other suggested changes.  If not, we’ll clean up all of the formatting issues to prepare it for inclusion in the Final Report before Friday.

Thanks everybody!

Todd.   

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:56 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com>; gnso-ppsai3@icann.org; Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>; Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com>; Don M. Blumenthal <dmb@donblumenthal.com>; Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

Hi Mary,
No, we are are not finished yet. Assuming that the WG approves the jurisdiction language as Subteam 3 has created and approved it, we need to write the language into the affidavit being signed by the Requester on behalf of the Rights Holder. Waiver of jurisdiction, as you know, has to be clear and explicit.

As Todd noted, I gave this language a try a few weeks ago - adding text to the Request Template language of Annex E, Sec. 2. I'll recirculate that language shortly - adding small edits to further align it (as needed) with the updated jurisdiction language we agreed on late last week.

Kathy

On 11/16/2015 10:14 AM, Mary Wong wrote:

Hello everyone,

 

Thanks again to Kathy and Todd for continuing the discussion. Following from the usual chairs-staff weekly preparation call for the next WG meeting tomorrow, I’m passing on the WG co-chairs’ request for Sub Team members to provide any additional feedback they may have on the language below as soon as you can, and if possible before 1700 UTC today so that the new language can be circulated to the WG before the call tomorrow.

 

The co-chairs would also like to request that the Sub Team confirm that there are no other outstanding substantive issues with the Illustrative Disclosure Framework that requires further WG discussion.

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4889

 

 

From: <gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 07:24
To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com>, "gnso-ppsai3@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai3@icann.org>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com>, "Don M. Blumenthal" <dmb@donblumenthal.com>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

Tx Todd, looks good to me too. What do others think?
Kathy

On 11/13/2015 3:18 PM, Williams, Todd wrote:

Looks good, thanks Kathy.  I’d suggest a couple minor tweaks: 

“In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer’s contact information, Rights Holder agrees to to submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) where it is incorporated (or of its home address, if an individual), AND (2) where the Provider specifies on its request form, solely for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by the Requester, or from Requester’s and/or Rights Holder’s knowing misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request.” 

?        The first change is just to account for the situation where the Rights Holder is not a corporation but an individual.  If anybody has any other suggested language to more elegantly address that, feel free.

?        The second is to note the discussion that we had previously on the jurisdiction being called out as part of the request form, and to put back in “solely” (which I know was in there before, and I think just got dropped somewhere along the way).

Looks good – hopefully we’re close to done.


TW.

From:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai3-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:08 AM
To: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org; Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com>; Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com>; Don M. Blumenthal <dmb@donblumenthal.com>; Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>; Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Action items from WG call today

 

All (Subteam 3),
This is what I proposed originally:

In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer’s contact information, Requester agrees to to submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of your domicile and (2) where Provider is located be bound by jurisdiction at the seat of the Service Provider  for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by the Requester, or from Requester’s knowing misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request. 
 
In light of discussion and review, I now recommend the following:

In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer’s contact information, Rights Holder agrees to to submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) where it is incorporated AND (2) where the Provider specifies for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by the Requester or from Requester’s and/or Rights Holders' knowing misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request.  ("Revised Paragraph")

The "AND" is capitalized so it won't be deleted again. The goal here is simply to ensure that the Rights Holder is responsible. As we provided in the Request Template, the Requester must have the "authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request" and bind the rights holder to the "limitations on the use of Customer data" once revealed.  So it is the Rights Holder who is responsible and who should be reachable if abuse occurs.

I agree with Todd that we should make this explicit. I already took steps to do that in our revised Annex E. As these earlier edits share, we should include the jurisdiction agreement in the affidavit being signed by the Requester, and per our additional discussion, we should have the Provider state there what jurisdiction it is setting out. 

Kathy



On 11/10/2015 5:41 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

Dear WG members,

 

Following up on the call earlier today, the co-chairs would like to encourage everyone to continue discussions on the mailing list so that we can finalize our recommendations soon. For your review and discussion, the co-chairs are proposing the updated draft language below on the two main outstanding issues, based on the most recent WG discussions.

 

(1) On additional language for the definition of P/P service providers:

 

"The WG recommends that Registrars not knowingly accept registrations from P/P service providers who are not accredited through the process developed by ICANN. For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply.”

 

(2) On Option 2 (Jurisdiction) of the Illustrative Disclosure Framework:

 

"In making a submission to request disclosure of a Customer’s contact information, Requester agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in the location specified by the Provider in its published Terms of Service, solely for disputes arising from alleged improper disclosures caused by knowingly false statements made by the Requester, or from Requester’s knowing misuse of information disclosed to it in response to its request.”

 

Please also take this opportunity to provide feedback on the substantive recommendations contained in the draft Final Report circulated on 8 October, as we are finalizing an updated draft for circulation shortly.

 

Thank you!

 

Cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4889

 

 






_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg