Thanks Kathy and Holly. Just to summarize where I think we are (and again, I’ve been working backward from what Sub-team 1.3.2 presented last week, which I’ve attached –
I assume that what our sub-team will present next week will look something like that):
·
First there will be a paragraph (or bullet point or however we want to style it) discussing those comments that argued that the WG’s
proposed accreditation standards should hold that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish under any circumstances. This section will discuss: how many of those comments were there, who did they come from, what did they argue.
·
Next there will be a paragraph discussing those comments that argued that the WG’s proposed accreditation standards should hold that
P/P Providers can only disclose and/or publish following a court order, subpoena, or other legal process. Again, this section will discuss: how many of those comments were there, who did they come from, what did they argue, etc. I agree with Kathy that the
“Respect our Privacy” submissions should be analyzed in this paragraph. I also agree with Holly’s point though that in this paragraph we should note that the “Respect our Privacy” submissions took a more extreme position than others (like Google’s, for example),
in that they argued that P/P Providers can only disclose and/or publish following a
court order, and didn’t accept that other legal or ICANN-recognized processes (such as a UDRP for example) could suffice.
·
Next there will be a paragraph discussing those comments that argued that our WG’s proposed accreditation standards should hold that
P/P Providers can sometimes disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process, but then offered thoughts as to whether and how the Disclosure Framework outlined in Annex E ought to be modified. My plan for this paragraph was to
first have a general summary of whose comments fell in this category. And I agree with Kathy that the Save Domain Privacy petition signatories fit here, in that “verifiable evidence of wrongdoing” is what II(A), (B), and (C) of Annex E contemplate. Following
that summary, my plan was then to list each proposed change to the language of Annex E (perhaps in a bullet point format), followed by who recommended it, and what their arguments were for it. That said, I disagree with Kathy that each of those comments and
all of those suggested changes will necessarily be to a “higher standard.” From my initial review, I think the comments are going to recommend changes in both directions, which we ought to reflect in the summary.
·
Finally there will be a paragraph discussing those comments that we’re not sure what to do with.
That’s how I see our task anyway. So far we have Sara and Holly writing the first draft of the first two paragraphs, me and Kathy writing the third, and Darcy writing the
fourth (though of course we can all edit the final before it goes to the entire WG). Let me know if anybody else wants to join. And with that, my quick thoughts on some of the bigger-picture points below:
·
Given that our summary will only be on what commenters said about Annex E, and given that Annex E doesn’t touch on LE requests, my thought
is that we should leave analysis of comments on LE to the other sub-teams (I’m pretty sure LE would fall in both sub-team 1 and sub-team 4’s work). Not that I’m not interested in LE – just that we have plenty of work as it is, without duplicating work that
is being handled by other sub-teams.
·
In response to Mary’s email (attached): I agree that I’m not sure that I see the utility of adding the form-based submissions to the
compiled template/matrix Word doc. As I understand it, the attached Word doc is just a tool to help us get to our final work product, which is the summary presentation to the rest of the WG. If we make a point to discuss the form-based submissions in our
summary presentation to the rest of the WG (which, as I noted above, we’re certainly planning to do), then I don’t see why we’d need to add columns to the attached Word doc for each of those. I mean, if somebody wants to take the time to do so, that’s fine.
I just don’t see how that helps us get to our final work product.
·
Finally, one quick point: I see our sub-team’s role, and the role of the summary that we are to present to the entire WG next week,
as purely descriptive. In other words: what did the comments say? To the extent that there is going to be any normative or substantive discussion that goes one step beyond that – OK, this is what the comments said, but now what do we
do about that? – I think that has to be left to the entire WG to debate after we present our summary. I’m just throwing out that reminder b/c I think it will help keep our work easier.
Thanks all!
Hi All,
I support the division of comments into buckets as Todd has created and Holly has revised. Do we have four buckets now? Below (and preceeded by "==>") I show where the two large groups of missing comments might go. Tx!
Hi Everyone
First- sorry not to follow up sooner. And Todd - I agree with the refined break up into three buckets- with an additional element or so.
The first category is clearly no, not ever, under any circumstances. All that is needed from us is to count the comments and where they are from.
==> So bucket one, no disclosure ever.
The second is one I’d like to expand a bit - and see where that gets us. As Todd and I suggest, it is a category that specifically states the need for a legal process. (it is framed variously as court order court process, Subpoena) My
suggestion is that the overall heading is no reveal unless there has been a legal process of some sort in the relevant jurisdiction. The wrinkle here is that, under an ICANN dispute resolution process (e.g., UDRP) where details of the customer would be revealed.
Given this is a recognised ICANN process in which details are already revealed, my suggestion is to characterise th category in that way.
==> Bucket Two, disclosure of data to private parties and law enforcement only subject to court order. This is where the
"Respect our Privacy" thousands of individual submissions fits: "No one’s personal information should be revealed without a court order, regardless of whether the request comes from a
private individual or law enforcement agency”. (Mary, do we happen to have a final count of these individual submission?)
My reading of both categories is to say that Annex E is not necessary for either. (and Kathy - the comments you refer to below would fit into the first or second basket)
The third category is the only one that goes beyond what is already required to suggest there may be other circumstances where the contact details of the customer would be revealed to a third party that is either not part of an ICANN process or a court process.
And the challenge will be to work through what those situations are.
==> Bucket Three (formerly Two) is now the one that accepts the premise of Annex E, as Holly and Todd have laid out, but offers thoughts on how to change the Disclosure Framework to the higher standards requested by commenters. The question for me is what bucket
the 11,000 Save Domain Privacy petition signatories fit in: they wrote "Privacy providers should not forced to reveal my private information without verifiable evidence of wrongdoing." Can Annex E be revised to raise the standard to require "verifiable evidence
of wrongdoing" w/o a court order? If so, what changes must be made in Annex E to meet this higher standard? If not, do these 11,000+ petition signatures really belong in [revised] Bucket 2, court order? I look forward to our discussions ahead!
My next query is where we put Law Enforcement Agency requests. If they have a warrant, I’d suggest that we put them in the second category - in most jurisdictions, warrants are not granted without some kind of judicial oversight. Without
a warrant (or some judicial oversight), requests by Law Enforcement/Security requests would be under some kind of Annex.
==> Holly, do I understand right that this might be a new Bucket Four - LE w/o CO -- Law Enforcement w/o Court Order. I think it makes sense and I would like to see where the comments fall on this issue. Plus
Annex E is only for private individuals/private attorneys/private companies. So now seems to be a good time to break out informal LE requests into its own category.
I”ll be having a look at that third category
My other way of looking at this issue is whether or not the relevant p/p provider must make some sort of judgment call. For the first category - the answer is a simple NO. For the second category, there is either some sort of judicially
approved document for that jurisdiction or an approved ICANN process - or not. It is only in the third category that the providers must make a judgment call on whether the requirements are met, or not.
==> Quick note, we still need the miscellaneous bucket that Todd created for "unclear" bucket, so [renamed] Bucket Five = unclear? Best, Kathy
Hi Mary and All,
Glad to be with you on this subteam 3 and looking forward to our discussion.
Mary, I was very glad to see that Turner Broadcasting comments had been included in this comment summary. Let me ask about the 10,000+ comments we received, the vast majority entitled: ICANN- Respect Our Privacy. All
of these comments contain a clear call:
- No one’s personal information should be revealed without a court order,
regardless of whether the request comes from a private individual or law
enforcement agency.
Sorry if I missed it, but is this call from so many thousands of commenters for not disclosing p/p data to a private individual (which would include a private lawyer) reflected in our comment summary tool?
Best and tx,
Kathy
:
Please find an updated Word document that now INCLUDES the extensive comments from Turner Broadcasting System (once again, thanks for spotting this omission, Todd!). They have
been inserted into ROW 19 for the first question/topic (General Comments) on PAGE 16, and ROW 7 for the second question/topic (Specific
Comments on the Framework Language) on PAGE 39.
Apologies again for the inadvertent omission – they have been added to these rows and pages simply to retain the chronology of when they were received, to maintain consistency
across all the templates. I’ll update the Sub Team wiki page accordingly.
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Welcome to the Sub Team 3 (Annex E) mailing list!
Todd - I think you just found an omission from staff (me), for which I apologize. I definitely had the Turner comment in my compilation of comments and documents, but I
think what happened is that in formatting the table for the Word document I somehow managed to edit that out. I am very sorry, and thanks for noting it! This is exactly why staff welcomes WG members’ questions, and why we emphasize that our compilation/edits
don’t replace WG members’ reading the comments themselves if possible. At the same time, I do hope you all know that we try our best to do as thorough and comprehensive a job as possible, so a combination of our efforts and a WG’s/Sub Team’s eagle eyes is
the best arrangement.
Basically, we read through all the comments that appeared to address specific recommendations and/or open questions, and we also read all the online template responses that
do the same. The Word document is therefore the compilation of all of these, tailored to each Sub Team (or the full WG, as appropriate). I’ve taken a quick look through my documents/collected comments and don’t believe I have missed out any others; however,
I will do a more thorough check shortly on all the Word documents I’ve compiled to date for all the Sub Teams, just to be sure.
On the approach - from the staff perspective, Todd’s suggested approach seems to make sense, and would align pretty well with what we ourselves would probably have suggested.
You could start with two smaller groups to tackle the two categories suggested, based on Todd’s initial sweep, and in doing so also note any comments that didn’t address either – so that they can either be referred to the appropriate Sub Team (if any) or considered
by the full WG (if appropriate).
BTW, Todd, maybe it’s my machine or more likely that I haven’t looked through it in detail, but I’m not seeing your comments/additions/edits in the document you circulated
…. ?
Thanks for kicking things off, and do let me know if you need assistance from staff in any way!
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Am I the first to try this out? Cool.
As I mentioned in my email on Tuesday (attached), I thought that the presentation that we had on our last call from the 1.3.2 sub-team was helpful to illustrate where we’ll
need to be by 8-11, which in turn might help us decide what we’ll need to do to get there. Specifically, I thought it helped that the 1.3.2 sub-team divided their work into two basic questions, and then presented separately on each. I’d recommend that we
do the same. Here are the two that I’d propose:
1) Those
comments that rejected the premise of Annex E, and instead argued that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process authorizing them to do so. Presumably this group would present on:
· How
many of these comments were there?
· Who
did they come from?
· What
arguments did they make?
· What
ramifications would these arguments have on other portions of the Initial Report beyond Annex E?
2) Those
comments that accepted the premise of Annex E that P/P Providers can sometimes disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process, but then offered thoughts as to whether and how the Disclosure Framework outlined in Annex E ought
to be modified. Presumably this group would present on:
· How
many of these comments were there?
· Who
did they come from?
· What
arguments did they make?
· What
potential changes to Annex E could the WG make to address the arguments raised in these comments?
I offer those two buckets for a couple of reasons. First, I think it will help our sub-team “divide and conquer” the work that we have before us (much like the 1.3.2 sub-team
did). Second, I’m not really sure how we’d otherwise substantively reconcile those two buckets of comments. A comment that argues that P/P Providers should not be allowed to disclose and/or publish absent a court order isn’t arguing for changes to Annex
E; it’s arguing to scrap Annex E altogether.
With those two buckets in mind, I’ve taken a first pass through the comments in the Review Tool Word Document that Mary circulated (attached). My thoughts below. First,
can everybody double-check to make sure that they agree with how I’ve tentatively divided the comments? Once we’re comfortable with that allocation, then perhaps the next step would be to divide our sub-team into two (or three, if some members want to tackle
the third “unclear” category) to start reviewing the comments in each bucket and then drafting two documents to present to the WG answering the questions outlined above (and any other questions that anybody wants to suggest).
Finally, one last question for Staff: can you give us a little bit of
information on the methodology of how the attached Word document was compiled? I’m just curious because I want to make sure that our sub-team is comfortable that what we are reviewing is exhaustive. For example, I know that Turner’s comment (available
here:http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfrXQ3VcnSR7.pdf)
had some thoughts on Annex E. Yet it wasn’t included in the attached. And I only know that it mentions Annex E because I drafted it. J So
I want to make sure that there aren’t other comments on Annex E that we also ought to be reviewing.
Thanks. Look forward to working with everybody.
Counsel
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
One CNN Center, 10 North
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
P: 404-827-2234
· Bucket
One: rejects the premise of Annex E.
1) Internet
Commerce Association (though with carve-out for breach of material service terms such as Internet abuse)
7) EasyDNS
(though with same carve-out as ICA for breach of service terms such as net abuse)
- Bucket Two: accepts the premise of Annex E, but offers thoughts on how to change the Disclosure Framework.
4) CDT,
Open Technology Institute & Public Knowledge
8) Shardul
Amarchand Mangaldas
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list
Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3