[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Apr 21 12:59:07 UTC 2015

Dear All,
Some new language was introduced after the meeting last week. Despite 
objections from me, James Gannon and James Bladel, and a promise from 
Steve that it would be discussed this week for consideration, it has 
been included -- and longstanding language that we have agreed to for 
weeks (months?) has become bracketed and "optional." I don't think that 
is the right way to handle this process so late in the day. I strongly 
request that we return to the original language (included below from 
Mary's 4/13 circulated just before the last meeting) and if people want 
to change III.C.2 and 3 (completely rewrite, really), they should argue 

         From Mary's Reveal text circulated 4/13 just before our last 
meeting (with note that my objection is solely to the sudden complete 
change of III.C.2 and 3 (and not to the evolving dialogue and wording of 

    *[III] C.*Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons
    consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not
    limited to any of the following:

      *(1)*the Service Provider has already published Customer contact
      details in Whois as the result of termination of privacy and proxy

      *(2)*the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided
      [adequate] reasons against disclosure, including without
      limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or
      copyrighted content in question;

      *(3)*the Provider has found [adequate] reasons against disclosure,

      *(4)*the Customer has surrendered its domain name registration in
      lieu of disclosure, if the Service Provider offers its Customers
      this option.

      *(5)*that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found,
      specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or
      copyright request is a pretext for obtaining the Customer’s
      contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s
      human rights[facts and circumstances] [information, facts and/or
      circumstances] showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright
      complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s
      contact details [solely] [mainly] for the purpose of contravening
      the Customer’s [human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)]
      [privacy rights].


> Dear WG members,
> The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as 
> follows; please also note the additional information/suggestions that 
> follow.
>  1. Roll call/updates to SOI
>  2. Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework
>     intended for public comment – Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached)
>  3. Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report
>     – see below
>  4. Next steps/next meeting – including circulation of final draft
>     Initial Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and
>     publication date for public comment
> The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was 
> circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes: 
> (1) the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of 
> authorization (as noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April 
> document); and (2) for clarity, the retention of “square brackets” 
> only with reference to language that still reflects two or more 
> options (since the entire document will be open for public comment in 
> any case).
> For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions 
> from the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29 
> January 2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive 
> discussion at the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the 
> suggested answers below for discussion/agreement/other comments. 
> Graeme and Steve’s suggestions are highlighted in *blue*, with 
> references to the context for these remaining questions (as page 
> numbers from the draft Report) following in bold and underlined. The 
> actual phrasing of each question can be found in _*Section 1.3.2 of 
> the Executive Summary*_ of the draft Report as well.
> _Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P 
> Providers_:
>   * The standard for maintaining a P/P provider’s designated point of
>     contact: - *the person or team must be “capable and authorized”*
>     (per the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the IRTP
>     <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en>) (see
>     _*pages 50-51*_ of the draft Initial Report)
>   * The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an
>     abuse report is made to the designated point of contact – *while
>     the requirement under Section 3.18.1 of the 2013 RAA
>     <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> 
>     (“taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond”)
>     had been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has
>     been superseded by the WG’s specific recommendations on Relay and
>     Disclosure (_pages 51-52_) *
>   * To ensure provider contactability  – *P/P providers should be
>     required to publish contact information on their website, modelled
>     after Section 2.3 of the interim Specification on Privacy and
>     Proxy Registrations
>     <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy> in
>     the 2013 RAA (_pages 51-52_)*
> __
> _On Escalation of Relay Requests_:
>   * On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests
>     in the event of persistent delivery failure of electronic
>     communications – retain current language in draft Initial Report
>     (including bracketed options) for public comment.
>     The current draft language reads as follows:
>         /"While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider’s
>         obligation to act in the event it becomes aware of a
>         persistent delivery failure, the WG has yet to agree on
>         obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by a
>         requestor. The following is the current language under
>         consideration by the WG, with the options included in square
>         brackets:/
>     /“As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned
>     requirements concerning a persistent delivery failure of an
>     electronic communication have been met, the provider [should]
>     [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its
>     customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the most
>     appropriate means of forwarding such a request  [and to charge a
>     reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee
>     is to be borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider
>     shall have the right to impose reasonable limits on the number of
>     such requests made by the same requestor.”” /*(_pages 53-54_)*
> Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of 
> the WG’s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and 
> publish in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a 
> customer’s contact details will be Published due to the customer’s 
> breach of one or more of the Terms of Service. While this is not a 
> Charter-based question, WG members are encouraged – when they come to 
> review the final draft Initial Report – to consider this question and 
> provide additional feedback if necessary.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150421/786c3de8/attachment-0001.html>

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