November 2017 - Gnso-rds-pdp-6

Final Deliverable from DT6, Legal Actions
by Chuck Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Here is the final deliverable for Drafting Team 6 for the Legal Actions Purpose/Use Case. DT6 will provide an overview of this in the 14 November WG meeting. In addition, DT6 concurs with a suggestion made by DT5 that the WG may want to consider combining Legal Actions with the Regulatory Purpose/Use Case because they largely overlap." Chuck

1 0

Final Deliverable for DT5, Regulatory & Contractual Enforcement Purposes/Use Cases
by Chuck Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Here are the final deliverables for Drafting Team 5 for the Regulatory and Contractual Enforcements Purposes/Use Cases. DT6 will provide overviews of these in the 14 November WG meeting. In addition, with concurrence from DT6, DT5 suggests that the WG may want to consider combining the Regulatory Purpose/Use Case with the Legal Actions one because they largely overlap. Note that the 'Purpose Name' of 'Contractual Enforcement' was changed to 'ICANN Contractual Enforcement' because DT5 narrowed the focus with the understanding that contractual enforcement actions by other parties are covered in the Regulatory and Legal Actions Purposes/Use Cases. Staff: Please post these on the WG wiki. Chuck

1 0

Backup Presenter on 14 November
by Chuck Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Griffin, As you may have seen, Vicky volunteered to present our final output for Legal Actions if she can do it in the first hour of the 14 November WG meeting. Would you be willing to serve as a backup presenter if needed? Chuck

3 3

Final review of DT6 Deliverable on Legal Actions
by Chuck Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Here is a clean version of our final deliverable for the Legal Actions Purpose/Use Case. I plan to submit it with the following transmittal message: "Here is the final deliverable for Drafting Team 6 for the Legal Actions Purpose/Use Case. DT6 will provide an overview of this in the 14 November WG meeting. In addition, DT6 concurs with a suggestion made by DT5 that the WG may want to consider combining Legal Actions with the Regulatory Purpose/Use Case because the largely overlap." Note that I plan to submit the final version in about 5 hours (12 pm PST) so this is the last opportunity for any additional input. If I do not receive any more feedback indicating otherwise, I will submit it as is. Thanks for the great teamwork. Chuck

1 0

FW: FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
by Chuck Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Note that Steve agrees with Paul and Farell with one exception. He made an insert in the 4th bullet under Users that is highlighted in the attached. Please let me know today if anyone has a problem with this. Reminder, any additional edits are due by end of day today. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 8:22 AM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com> Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck, thanks for sharing this document, which is very thorough and comprehensive. I agree that all the use cases we identified for "export" to DT6 are covered, with one exception: the merchant monitoring service use case provided by Terri Stumme to our working group last year, and consistently identified in our DT5 drafts. This use case can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries %20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600 0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2. To cure this omission I have suggested inserting three words in the fourth bullet under "users." (See attached) (The relevant task is more or less described in item 4 of Annex A, but the user carrying out that task in the use case put forward by Terri is not identified anywhere in the DT6 draft , and I think is sufficiently distinct from those that are identified that I would support its explicit inclusion.) Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 8:07 AM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Importance: High Steve, Please take note of Paul's comment below. He believes that the uses cases you cite are already sufficiently covered in the Legal Actions document. I attached it so you can see whether you agree. Please let me know what you think and I will pass your thoughts on to the DT5 list. Chuck From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul@law.es] Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 4:35 AM To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Importance: High I think these are already sufficiently incorporated in what we have for WG6. Paul From: <gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 11:17 PM To: <gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> > Cc: <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update DT6 members, Please note that DT5 suggests that the following use cases be included in the DT6 (Legal Actions) deliverable instead of the Contractual Enforcement deliverable. Are there any objections to me adding them? Note that the Contractual Enforcement deliverable has been changed to ICANN Contractual Enforcement. Please let me know if you have any concerns not later than end of day tomorrow (Tuesday). Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 11:38 AM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck, per discussion just now in DT 5, here are the use cases we are EXCLUDING from the contractual compliance paper (now to be re-named ICANN Contractual Compliance), and that should be picked up as use cases in the Legal Actions paper: use cases generated either by the EWG, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20% 20> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work, (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries %20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600 0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2); and also the following developed during our deliberations: Using registration data to seek to ascertain the identity and location of the operator (or domain name registrant responsible for) a website on which A's intellectual property rights are being exercised. For example, this could involve use of A's trademark in logos displayed on the site; offers for sale of merchandise bearing A's trademark; making available for download or streaming movies or sound recordings for which A holds the copyright; etc. This is a necessary first step to determining whether the operator (or registrant) is a licensee with respect to the intellectual property in question, and if so, whether the use of the intellectual property exceeds the scope of the license (e.g., because of territorial restrictions in the license). Alternatively, if A determines that the operator/registrant is not a licensee, this is a necessary first step in seeking contractual enforcement of terms of service by the registrar/registry, and/or potentially ICANN contractual enforcement of registrar/registry obligations to investigate and take appropriate action. Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:18 AM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Kris Seeburn' Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Thanks for the very helpful feedback Steve. My intent was not to eliminate any use cases but rather to differentiate between Regulatory action and Contractual Enforcement. I don't think that third parties enforce the agreements, but they can and are a source that assists ICANN Contractual Compliance so maybe we need to word it in a way that includes that. As I said in a different email a few days ago, the DT5 team (Regulatory or Contractual Enforcement) suggested that the Regulatory & Legal Actions purposes could be combined into one. How do DT5 team members feel about that? Note that I put that on the agenda for our call tomorrow. I am happy to see that my edits generated discussion. In the end the team needs to decide what to do, not me. Steve - if you want to revise the language to deal with any of these issues, I think that would be very helpful before our call tomorrow. And please do not feel obliged to use my edits. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 2:33 PM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck's suggested change re contractual enforcement would eliminate consideration of a number of use cases generated either by the EWG, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20% 20> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work, (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries %20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600 0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2). Our earlier draft identified five examples of entities using RDS for contractual enforcement purposes: "These entities include governmental tax authorities, UDRP providers, the ICANN organization, intellectual property owners, and merchant account monitoring solution providers, among others." Chuck's proposed change would move the first of these to the regulatory enforcement category (I support that), but would eliminate the second, fourth and fifth examples. It would recognize the contractual enforcement use only when ICANN was a party to the contract (the third example). Chuck, if your point is that these uses fit better under "legal actions" than under "contractual enforcement," then I would be OK with that so long as they are explicitly addressed under "legal actions." I think they fit better under "contract enforcement" because they in fact involve enforcement of contracts; but if the investigation supported by RDS data indicates a breach of contract, then the result may be a "legal action," i.e., a lawsuit. I would be quite concerned however if these important uses were not captured either in "contract enforcement" nor in "legal actions." Maybe Chuck or Lisa could advise us whether that is or is not the case. Steve Metalitz Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Chuck [ <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:39 AM To: 'Kris Seeburn' Cc: Metalitz, Steven; <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> lisa(a)corecom.com; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Importance: High I arrived home last night and am trying to catch up. Can someone please send me the latest Word versions and the links to the Google Docs for both deliverables? Also, regarding the definitions, I have been thinking about them and suspect that some WG members will have problem with the word 'collected' so I suggest that we consider using the word 'used' instead. And for Contractual Enforcement I question whether we should refer to Private Party Contracts because ICANN Compliance does not have any enforcement ability with Private Party Contracts so I edited that. They would then read as follows: Contractual Enforcement Information used to enable ICANN Compliance to monitor and enforce contracted parties' agreements with ICANN, as well as resolving issues of compliance arising from issues raised by private parties. Regulatory Information used to enable contact between the registrant and/or their designated point of contact and regulatory entities to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Please feel free to comment on these suggested edits before our call on Monday. Finally, here is a listing from the Wednesday meeting that summarizes our tasks: o Summarize each purpose in one sentence: "Information collected to enable contact between the registrant and <who> <to accomplish what>" o Think in terms of explaining to the data subject why data is being collected for this purpose - keep it concise and simple. o Are the tasks/users identified by your team so diverse and distinct that they may be more than one purpose? If so, split them up and describe each purpose separately. o Which purposes covered by other teams are closely related to or overlap the purpose(s) covered by your team? o Is there any data collected specifically for the stated purpose? Or does that purpose use only data collected for other purposes? If anyone has thoughts about any of these items, please share them with the team; we will discuss them on our call. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:37 PM To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Cc: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> >; lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck looked up at your edits and made a few balancing facts. I am now forwarding the updated latest document that we have worked on. We will also be finding a way to work with the team who have worked on "Legal" and i think we may need at some point work with the "investigation" team which in reality also matches with both the enforcement and regulatory. Just some suggestions. They will be good additions to our work. In fact i feel there are areas that overlap which may be the connection points to the whole of each group. But that would be a later stage approach. I think we need to update and push it to the google docs now so that everyone sees the same versioning as we move. Suggestions: Use cases as Appendix to the documents. Anything else to grow the document and understanding can be laid out as an appendix to each document. Another area that we may add at a later stage is "new gtld auction proceeds" they may be within contractual enforcement and some other groups. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-6 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-6

3 2

FW: Meeting Notes & Latest Version for team review
by Chuck Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Remember that comments and any additional edits are needed by the end of the day today. If none are received, I will assume that everyone is okay with the latest version; if that is an inaccurate assumption and anyone needs a little more time, please let me know today, realizing that I need to finalize the documents and deliver them early Wednesday afternoon PST. As said in the meeting notes, for the 14 November WG meeting, Vicky volunteered to present our final output for Legal Actions if she can do it in the first hour of the 14 November WG meeting. It would be good idea to have a backup presenter so will reach out to Griffin to see if could serve as backup. Note that I will likely not be calls on the 14th or 21st. Chuck From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:40 AM To: 'gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org' <gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org> Cc: RDS-Leaders-List (gnso-next-gen-rds-lead(a)icann.org) <gnso-next-gen-rds-lead(a)icann.org> Subject: Meeting Notes & Latest Version for team review Importance: High The notes of today's DT6 call are attached along with the latest version of the DT6 deliverable. All team members are asked to review the latest version and provide any feedback on this list no later than end of day on Tuesday. As stated in the meeting notes, two edits were made in response to email input from Paul; they are redlined in the attached revised document. Chuck

1 0

FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
by Chuck Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

DT6 members, Please note that DT5 suggests that the following use cases be included in the DT6 (Legal Actions) deliverable instead of the Contractual Enforcement deliverable. Are there any objections to me adding them? Note that the Contractual Enforcement deliverable has been changed to ICANN Contractual Enforcement. Please let me know if you have any concerns not later than end of day tomorrow (Tuesday). Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 11:38 AM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com>; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com> Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net>; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck, per discussion just now in DT 5, here are the use cases we are EXCLUDING from the contractual compliance paper (now to be re-named ICANN Contractual Compliance), and that should be picked up as use cases in the Legal Actions paper: use cases generated either by the EWG, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20%…> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work, (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie… <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie…> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2); and also the following developed during our deliberations: Using registration data to seek to ascertain the identity and location of the operator (or domain name registrant responsible for) a website on which A’s intellectual property rights are being exercised. For example, this could involve use of A’s trademark in logos displayed on the site; offers for sale of merchandise bearing A’s trademark; making available for download or streaming movies or sound recordings for which A holds the copyright; etc. This is a necessary first step to determining whether the operator (or registrant) is a licensee with respect to the intellectual property in question, and if so, whether the use of the intellectual property exceeds the scope of the license (e.g., because of territorial restrictions in the license). Alternatively, if A determines that the operator/registrant is not a licensee, this is a necessary first step in seeking contractual enforcement of terms of service by the registrar/registry, and/or potentially ICANN contractual enforcement of registrar/registry obligations to investigate and take appropriate action. Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:18 AM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Kris Seeburn' Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Thanks for the very helpful feedback Steve. My intent was not to eliminate any use cases but rather to differentiate between Regulatory action and Contractual Enforcement. I don’t think that third parties enforce the agreements, but they can and are a source that assists ICANN Contractual Compliance so maybe we need to word it in a way that includes that. As I said in a different email a few days ago, the DT5 team (Regulatory or Contractual Enforcement) suggested that the Regulatory & Legal Actions purposes could be combined into one. How do DT5 team members feel about that? Note that I put that on the agenda for our call tomorrow. I am happy to see that my edits generated discussion. In the end the team needs to decide what to do, not me. Steve – if you want to revise the language to deal with any of these issues, I think that would be very helpful before our call tomorrow. And please do not feel obliged to use my edits. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 2:33 PM To: 'Chuck' <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> >; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > Cc: lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck’s suggested change re contractual enforcement would eliminate consideration of a number of use cases generated either by the EWG, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20%…> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work, (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie… <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie…> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2). Our earlier draft identified five examples of entities using RDS for contractual enforcement purposes: “These entities include governmental tax authorities, UDRP providers, the ICANN organization, intellectual property owners, and merchant account monitoring solution providers, among others.” Chuck’s proposed change would move the first of these to the regulatory enforcement category (I support that), but would eliminate the second, fourth and fifth examples. It would recognize the contractual enforcement use only when ICANN was a party to the contract (the third example). Chuck, if your point is that these uses fit better under “legal actions” than under “contractual enforcement,” then I would be OK with that so long as they are explicitly addressed under “legal actions.” I think they fit better under “contract enforcement” because they in fact involve enforcement of contracts; but if the investigation supported by RDS data indicates a breach of contract, then the result may be a “legal action,” i.e., a lawsuit. I would be quite concerned however if these important uses were not captured either in “contract enforcement” nor in “legal actions.” Maybe Chuck or Lisa could advise us whether that is or is not the case. Steve Metalitz Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: Chuck [ <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:39 AM To: 'Kris Seeburn' Cc: Metalitz, Steven; <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> lisa(a)corecom.com; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Importance: High I arrived home last night and am trying to catch up. Can someone please send me the latest Word versions and the links to the Google Docs for both deliverables? Also, regarding the definitions, I have been thinking about them and suspect that some WG members will have problem with the word ‘collected’ so I suggest that we consider using the word ‘used’ instead. And for Contractual Enforcement I question whether we should refer to Private Party Contracts because ICANN Compliance does not have any enforcement ability with Private Party Contracts so I edited that. They would then read as follows: Contractual Enforcement Information used to enable ICANN Compliance to monitor and enforce contracted parties’ agreements with ICANN, as well as resolving issues of compliance arising from issues raised by private parties. Regulatory Information used to enable contact between the registrant and/or their designated point of contact and regulatory entities to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Please feel free to comment on these suggested edits before our call on Monday. Finally, here is a listing from the Wednesday meeting that summarizes our tasks: o Summarize each purpose in one sentence: “Information collected to enable contact between the registrant and <who> <to accomplish what>” o Think in terms of explaining to the data subject why data is being collected for this purpose – keep it concise and simple. o Are the tasks/users identified by your team so diverse and distinct that they may be more than one purpose? If so, split them up and describe each purpose separately. o Which purposes covered by other teams are closely related to or overlap the purpose(s) covered by your team? o Is there any data collected specifically for the stated purpose? Or does that purpose use only data collected for other purposes? If anyone has thoughts about any of these items, please share them with the team; we will discuss them on our call. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:37 PM To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Cc: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> >; lisa(a)corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com> ; Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update Chuck looked up at your edits and made a few balancing facts. I am now forwarding the updated latest document that we have worked on. We will also be finding a way to work with the team who have worked on “Legal” and i think we may need at some point work with the “investigation” team which in reality also matches with both the enforcement and regulatory. Just some suggestions. They will be good additions to our work. In fact i feel there are areas that overlap which may be the connection points to the whole of each group. But that would be a later stage approach. I think we need to update and push it to the google docs now so that everyone sees the same versioning as we move. Suggestions: Use cases as Appendix to the documents. Anything else to grow the document and understanding can be laid out as an appendix to each document. Another area that we may add at a later stage is “new gtld auction proceeds” they may be within contractual enforcement and some other groups.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] Monday Meeting
by Griffin Barnett Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Hi all, as we discussed this morning in our informal meeting (those who were able to attend), I have prepared an updated DT 6 document for further consideration. The doc is in redline form so you can all see the changes made. Specifically, these changes include: 1. Amending and streamlining the purpose definition (it is now in a single sentence format, and removes references to specific illustrative examples); 2. Adding in Farzaneh’s specific use scenario (re suppressing/prosecuting speech/political or civil activity/blasphemous activity) into Annex A. Best regards, Griffin From: jumaropi(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 11:53 PM To: Griffin Barnett <Griffin(a)Winterfeldt.law>; consult(a)cgomes.com Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] Monday Meeting I am on my way too. Enviado desde mi Huawei -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] Monday Meeting From: Griffin Barnett To: consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com> CC: gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> FYI I am on my way. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2017, at 10:19 PM, "consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>" <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> wrote: For those in Abu Dhabi and who are available, let’s go ahead and meet Monday morning at 8 am GST at the Hiatt restaurant on the 18th floor. We will not be able to have remote participation but that was the time when most were available and we will not make any decisions without involved those who cannot attend. Chuck _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-6 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-6(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-6

5 5

Meeting Notes & Latest Version for team review
by Chuck Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

The notes of today's DT6 call are attached along with the latest version of the DT6 deliverable. All team members are asked to review the latest version and provide any feedback on this list no later than end of day on Tuesday. As stated in the meeting notes, two edits were made in response to email input from Paul; they are redlined in the attached revised document. Chuck

1 0

AC Recording, AC Chat & attendance from Next-Gen RDS drafting team 6 - Legal Actions call held on Monday, 06 November 2017 at 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the Adobe Connect recording, chat and attendance from the Next-Gen RDS drafting team 6 - Legal Actions call held on Monday, 06 November 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2lxnw8lif5/ Attendance: Chuck Gomes, Vicky Sheckler, Juan Manuel Rojas, Farzaneh Badii Apology: Griffin Barnett, Paul Keating Staff: Michelle DeSmyter Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect Chat: Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the GNSO Next-Gen RDS Subteam #6 - Legal Actions teleconference on Monday, 06 November 2017 at 17:00 UTC Farzaneh Badii:Hi Michelle Farzaneh Badii:Am I in the right room? Farzaneh Badii:no one is around Farzaneh Badii:Hi Chuck Roger Carney:Good Morning! Roger Carney:This is the latest I saw Farzaneh Badii:ok great Juan Manuel Rojas:Good Afternoon everyone Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Juan! Farzaneh Badii:I agree Chuck Farzaneh Badii:I thought it was arbitration ! Farzaneh Badii:agree Vicky Farzaneh Badii:adminstrative? it's private Farzaneh Badii:I agree with Vicky Roger Carney:Agreed Farzaneh Badii:yes Farzaneh Badii:I agree Chuck Farzaneh Badii:it did. I understood Chuck Juan Manuel Rojas 2:Agree Juan Manuel Rojas 2:ok Farzaneh Badii:I am fine with the doc Farzaneh Badii:hooray Roger Carney:I am good Roger Carney:Can we show thier current document? Juan Manuel Rojas 2:What is the current different between DT5 and ours? Juan Manuel Rojas 2:OK Roger Carney:Agreed WG as a whole, it seems like that component should be combined Juan Manuel Rojas 2:I agreed in our informal session in Abu Dhabi as well. Farzaneh Badii:I think it's sufficient Roger Carney:Have fun Chuck! Farzaneh Badii:nice! have fun Roger Carney:Agreed, thanks Vicky!! Farzaneh Badii:yes it was a great collaboration. Thanks Chuck and everyone else Juan Manuel Rojas 2:Thanks

1 0