[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F -- updated status report and text for discussion

[Mary Wong]

Hello everyone, and with thanks to Steve and Graeme for forwarding the
discussion document!

As a result, the proposed agenda for the WG call on 24 February is:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI
2. Discuss draft document (sent on 23 February by WG co-vice-chairs)
3. Next steps/next meeting
We will have the document text uploaded to Adobe Connect, as usual.

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


From:  <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com>
Date:  Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57
To:  "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F -- updated status report and
text for discussion

> PPSAI WG members,
>  
> This follows up on our note of Feb. 3 providing a status report on subgroup
> discussions among some IP interests and p/p service providers regarding p/p
> disclosure standards.  To reiterate, the group¹s work is not meant to obviate
> or displace the work of the larger PPSAI WG on this issue ­ rather, it is
> meant to constructively contribute to the discussion by producing one proposal
> on this issue for the larger group¹s consideration.
>  
> In light of further consideration and of the need to move forward the WG
> discussion on Category F, we present the attached document that we hope will
> help provide a framework for discussion of the disclosure issue in the WG.  We
> emphasize that this is not a proposal from IPC, the Registrar Stakeholder
> Group, or any subset of either, and that we fully anticipate the text to be
> modified and improved through further discussion at the WG level. (We also
> acknowledge that the WG may find the proposal wholly unsatisfactory but hope
> that it will at least help advance debate.)
>  
> The attached is put forward as a starting point, to use intellectual property
> infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum disclosure
> standards, in a framework that addresses  (1) a service provider process for
> intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would have to meet in
> order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles governing service
> provider action in response to a conforming request.
>  
> We look forward to the discussion of this document among WG members.
>  
> Graeme Bunton
> Steve Metalitz
>  
> 
> From: Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:57 PM
> To: PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org)
> Subject: Category F -- status report
>  
> Dear WG colleagues,
>  
> As you know, several PPSAI Working Group members, including representatives of
> the IPC and privacy and proxy service providers, have endeavored to develop a
> collaborative proposal on the minimum standards for disclosure (Category F).
> The group¹s work is not meant to obviate or displace the work of the larger
> group on this issue ­ rather, it is meant to constructively contribute to the
> discussion by producing one proposal on this issue for the larger group¹s
> consideration. This is an update on this sub-group¹s progress.
>  
> But first, a little background: At the face-to-face meeting of the PPSAI
> Working Group in Los Angeles on October 10, 2014, one important topic was
> minimum standards for disclosure of contact information of customers of
> privacy/proxy services who may or may not be using their private domain name
> registrations to carry out infringing or other abusive activities.
>  
> Prior to the face-to-face meeting, IPC participants in the Working Group
> circulated a proposal on this topic.  A responsive redline was circulated to
> the WG by Volker Greimann.
>  
> Following extensive discussion of these proposals and of the topic in general
> at the face-to-face meeting, a sub-group of WG participants have continued
> this discussion.  The sub-group includes participants from the IPC and
> privacy/proxy service providers. Meeting by teleconference and working over
> e-mail, the sub-group has sought to develop a text that could be jointly
> presented to the PPSAI Working Group as a framework for further discussion on
> the issue of standards for disclosure.
>  
> Some progress has been made, and the sub-group is continuing its efforts with
> the goal of producing a document for presentation to the PPSAI Working Group
> as soon after the Singapore ICANN meeting as feasible.  If such a document is
> completed, it is hoped that it would be a constructive contribution to
> eventual WG approval of a set of recommendations on ³Category F² for inclusion
> in the Draft Report of the WG.
>  
> Unlike the documents discussed by the full WG last October, the framework
> under discussion does not purport to establish a single general policy for
> when disclosure of contact information in cases of alleged abusive activities
> would be available.  Instead, it seeks to focus more narrowly on intellectual
> property infringement complaints as one illustrative example of minimum
> disclosure standards.  The framework would describe (1) a service provider
> process for intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would have
> to meet in order to trigger service provider action; and (3) principles
> governing service provider action in response to a conforming request.  While
> considerable progress has been made in the first two areas, a number of
> critical issues remain to be resolved in the third area, and discussion has
> not been concluded on any of the areas.
>  
> The expressed common goal of the discussion group participants is a framework
> that would give requestors a higher degree of certainty and predictability as
> to if, when and how they could obtain what level of disclosure; that would
> preserve for service providers a sufficient degree of flexibility and
> discretion in acting upon requests for disclosure; and that would include
> reasonable safeguards and procedures to protect the legitimate interests of
> customers of accredited proxy/privacy service providers.  Of course, balancing
> these interests is the difficult task before our working group. As stated,
> participants in the discussion group hope to be able to make a constructive
> contribution to the WG¹s efforts to do so.
>  
> Graeme Bunton
> Steve Metalitz
>  
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150223/cbf5a31d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150223/cbf5a31d/smime-0001.p7s>