[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Missing Annex

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Apr 7 13:07:06 UTC 2015

Hi Steve and All,
I think we need to add a missing Annex - one to cover the process that 
should take place when a Requester or the Trademark/Copyright Owner to 
which it is reporting disclose the Revealed Data in way that is not 
consistent with the limitations agreed to in the disclosure -- e.g., 
publishes the data or passes it on to other third parties (who 
presumably misuse it- which is how the Provider might learn of the 
misuse).  This action could, of course, compromise the safety and 
security of individuals and organizations.

I volunteer to work with others to write such an Annex by next week...


> Just a brief note that could facilitate our discussion tomorrow with 
> regard to the “Annex” to the draft disclosure framework.  (Thanks Mary 
> for recirculating this text.)
> As the title spells out, the document sets forth “Some options for 
> resolving disputes arising from alleged false statements leading to 
> improper disclosures*.” *The Annex is not intended to address any 
> appeal mechanism regarding a disclosure request, but only the 
> consequences of a request wrongfully granted because based on false 
> pretenses.
> In this document, “some” options basically boils down to two options. 
> Under the first option, a requestor would agree to submit such 
> disputes to an arbitrator.  (The other party to the dispute, the 
> privacy/proxy service provider, would presumably agree to this method 
> as well, as part of its accreditation process.) The document provides 
> some more detail about the arbitration process, though certainly much 
> more work would need to be done to implement it.
> Under the second option, the requestor would agree, for purposes of 
> such wrongful disclosure disputes, to submit to the jurisdiction of 
> the courts in the territory where the service provider is located.
> Our discussions over the past few weeks may have made the last 
> paragraph of the Annex document less relevant. It is based on the 
> assumption that, under either option, not all requestors would 
> necessarily be required to agree.  As specified in section I.b.iv of 
> the overall document, a service provider could, if it chose, institute 
> a “trusted requestor” program to facilitate processing of requests 
> from reliable sources.  The last paragraph of the Annex says that a 
> service  provider could, if it chose, make such an agreement a 
> condition of entry into a “trusted requestor” program, if it had one.  
> This last paragraph may be irrelevant if the group decides that _some_ 
> dispute resolution process should be available _whenever_ the service 
> provider believes it has wrongfully disclosed based on false 
> pretenses.  But ultimately the group still needs to decide whether 
> there will be such a mandatory dispute resolution process, and if so, 
> which process it will be (arbitration, or litigation in the service 
> provider’s home court).
> Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow.
> Steve Metalitz
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
> *Sent:* Monday, April 06, 2015 10:05 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 7 
> April 2014
> Dear WG members,
> The proposed agenda for the next WG call on 7 April 2014 is as follows:
>  1. Roll call/updates to SOI
>  2. Continue deliberations on Category F, specifically: (a)
>     attestation/signatory for Requests; (b) Section III.C(5); (c)
>     non-use of high-volume automated processes; and (d) the Annex.
>  3. Next steps/next meeting
> Please also find attached an updated version of the draft disclosure 
> framework for agenda item #2. This version accepts all the changes up 
> to last week (excluding prior suggested changes to the type of 
> information required on a Requestor), and adds the recent language 
> suggested by Val on attestation, Todd and Volker on III.C(5) (in 
> square brackets as two alternate versions), and a final 
> paragraph/sentence on the automation issue, based on language 
> previously suggested by Todd and a suggestion by James to look at the 
> specific language in the 2013 RAA applicable to this type of activity.
> The draft Annex 1 is also attached – it preserves the original text 
> that was presented to the WG several weeks ago, since the WG chairs 
> thought it would be easier to review that way in order to ensure that 
> everyone is clear about the options being offered.
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150407/8fe0b868/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list