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

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Mary

I’m afraid I am an apology for this meeting.  I have caught a bug of some kind and need the sleep.  That said, I think Steve and Graeme’s work is really useful in moving the debate along and I look forward to reading the transcript of the meeting

Holly
On 24 Feb 2015, at 4:54 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> 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:
> Roll call/updates to SOI
> Discuss draft document (sent on 23 February by WG co-vice-chairs)
> 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 group’s 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 group’s 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 group’s 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 group’s consideration. This is an update on this sub-group’s 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 “Category F” 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 WG’s efforts to do so. 
>>  
>> Graeme Bunton
>> Steve Metalitz
>>  
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150224/f4c5c036/attachment.html>