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