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

Tue Feb 24 15:01:49 UTC 2015

Sorry, but we have not had time to examine this document....
Stephanie

On 15-02-23 12:54 PM, Mary Wong 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:
>
>  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 <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57
> To: "'PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>)'" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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/de976360/attachment-0001.html>