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

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

 

 

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