[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 20 17:25:11 UTC 2015
Forgive me please is someone has already dissected this text. Lot of
ICANN traffic these days....
1. a) ICANN should not implement policy that requires disclosure
without a court order, or
This means that ICANN should not develop a policy which requires a
service provider to release information without a Court order....on a
routine basis, the policy requires it. Seems clear enough. Violates
national constitutional protections in some jurisdictions, I would argue.
b) no disclosure should be allowed without a court order.
Thiis on the other hand would require a policy that says, no disclosure
may be made without a court order. First problem is that not all
jurisdictions have court orders, some authorities (notably intelligence
authorities) do not need a Court order for certain kinds of releases.
This applies to many western democracies. In some jurisdictions, there
are also urgency provisions, in the case of life and death etc. So
this is an absolute prohibition against release without a Court order,
which would not fly, for instance, in Canada. Last time I checked there
were provisions in our privacy law to permit service providers to
disclose info to the police voluntarily when they believed a crime was
taking place....put there to facilitate the investigation of child
pornography and copyright abuse.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-07-20 8:55, Williams, Todd wrote:
>
> Thanks James and Volker. I’m curious how you interpret the comments
> to get to (a) rather than (b). The language from many of the comments
> is “No one’s personal information should be revealed without a court
> order.” How is that not almost verbatim to (b)?
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon
> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 6:50 AM
> *To:* Volker Greimann; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> Agreed Volker I would put my analysis in set A aswell.
>
> -James
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker
> Greimann
> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> these comments can be read in different ways:
>
> a) ICANN should not implement policy that requires disclosure without
> a court order, or
> b) no disclosure should be allowed without a court order.
>
> I tend to interpret the comments as being in the a) column.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
> Am 17.07.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
>
> No, James, we should certainly consider those concerns but not
> necessarily change the report.
>
> The single concern raised more often than any other, I am
> positive, is that proxy services should not be permitted to
> disclose any information on their customer without a court order.
> That is not a standard that your service or any other that I
> know of can meet. We can change our report to make that a
> requirement for privacy/proxy service providers. Should we?
>
> Steve
>
> *From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 3:35 PM
> *To:* Metalitz, Steven
> *Cc:* Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> Steve:
>
> With respect, if several thousand commenters raised issues that
> concern them, but are not addressed by our report, the our focus
> should be on changing the report, not discounting the comments.
>
> Thank you,
>
> J.
>
> ____________
>
> James Bladel
>
> GoDaddy
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 21:20, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
> <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>
> I am all in favor of people identifying topics they believe
> need to be addressed by the WG. However, Kathy, I have to
> disagree with your premise, which is that the ten thousand
> plus comments reflect responses to our questions or even
> statements of agreement or disagreement to our consensus
> positions or report proposals. A much smaller (though still
> significant) number of comments do that, and those should be
> our top priority for review and response. But the vast
> majority of comments clearly are not responses to our report.
> These mass comments raise a very limited number of issues,
> which I don’t think we will that much difficulty dealing with
> once we have addressed the responses to our questions and the
> reasoned statements of agreement or disagreement with specific
> proposals we have made.
>
> Let’s get started on the more substantive comments, starting
> with the questions we did pose. We have subteams forming to
> start to tackle that, and the staff (and Graeme!) are
> providing some tools to try to help facilitate that. For
> those who don’t wish to join subteams, again, I agree it would
> be useful to identify (as you put it) the “major issues and
> concerns” that you find in the comments, with citations to
> those comments that you believe raise those major issues and
> concerns.
>
> Steve
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:34 PM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> Hi Don, Steve, Graeme, Mary and all WG members,
> I would like recommend that we take a slightly different
> approach. We received over ten thousand comments, many coming
> from those who do not ordinarily participate in the ICANN
> process. They wrote to us us not only in response to our
> specific questions, but also to share agreement (and
> disagreement) to our consensus positions/report proposals, and
> to explain why proxy/privacy registrations are important to
> them. There has been a huge outpouring particularly on the
> last issue.
>
> While a few topics for cataloging these comments were
> presented on the call, with great respect, I do not think we
> have dealt with or cataloged all of the major issues and
> concerns raised by the comments yet. Before we leap forward to
> subteams and analysis, shouldn't we ask further, in writing,
> and with the whole of the WG participating -- have we gotten
> the topics right? Have we created sufficient topics to allow
> us to catalog the broad range of information, concerns and
> comments shared with us by so many commenters?
>
> I would like to request that we be able to take big breath,
> and a slightly (only slightly!) different approach. In
> preparation for Tuesday's call, could we all skim the comments
> -- with our array of expertise, insight, knowledge of aspects
> of our commenter base -- to come up with topics that we think
> the WG should evaluate in tour review? Perhaps if we can
> circulate the topics online, and then discuss them on Tuesday.
>
> Then we discuss how these topics/this substance might be
> overlaid on the subteam process laid out below and shared for
> the first time on last week's call. We will then have both
> substance and process! And we will know that we have
> considered all of the major issues arising from these
> important comments.
>
> If we go forward now without this evaluation, I fear we may be
> missing much of what the comments have to offer.
>
> Best and tx,
> Kathy
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Mary Wong
>
>
> *Sent:*14 July 2015 23:50
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for
> reviewing public comments
>
> Dear WG members,
>
> Following from the WG call earlier today, the co-chairs and
> staff after some consultation would like to propose the
> following approach for your consideration:
>
> _1. Use of Sub Teams for Specific Topics_:
>
> * Sub-teams comprising a few WG volunteers each can be
> formed to do the initial review of public comments
> received on the three topics suggested by Steve on the
> call, i.e. (1) Section 1.3.2 of the Initial Report (on
> escalation of relay requests and the handling of
> disclosure/publication requests from third parties other
> than IP rights holders); (2) Section 1.3.3 (on the open
> question regarding online financial transactions); and (3)
> Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework).
> * To assist the WG evaluate the usefulness of sub teams, a
> sub team for Section 1.3.2 can be formed first and serve
> as a “test case” for the exercise.
> * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a “first pass”
> through a template, based on the Public Comment Review
> Tool, that staff will populate with all the input received
> on that particular issue. The sub team will report back to
> the full WG in a timely fashion, including suggesting a WG
> response and/or proposed action in relation to the
> comments received.
> * Sub teams may elect to do their work via email and online
> tools (e.g. Google Docs or a wiki page), with or without
> supplemental conference calls. Any calls will be recorded
> and transcribed for transparency purposes, and drafts and
> other documents prepared using online tools will also be
> made available to the full WG. (Do note, however, that
> depending on call scheduling and timing, staff support may
> not be available for all requested calls if several sub
> teams are used concurrently.)
>
> *PLEASE VOLUNTEER FOR SUB TEAM 1.3.2 IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
> ASSISTING WITH THIS INITIAL REVIEW. *Staff will endeavor to
> provide the template tool for 1.3.2 to the sub team as soon as
> possible, hopefully by Monday.
>
> _2. Full WG Review of Other Comments to Continue in Parallel_:
>
> * Staff will “collapse” (per James’ suggestion on the call)
> all those template responses received that were simply a
> Yes or No answer to a question, without any further
> comment added – these will be reflected in the Public
> Comment Review Tool accordingly, as a single collective
> entry. The current Tool (covering Preliminary
> Recommendations 1 through 9) will be updated in time for
> the WG to begin this review on the next call.
>
> _3. Collated Information_:
>
> * In addition to the updated spreadsheet just circulated by
> Graeme, we can also send you archived mail files of the
> contributions received to the public comment forum, should
> you or your group wish to conduct searches through each
> comment yourselves.
>
> We hope the above will be helpful in facilitating good
> progress on the work to be done in preparation for the Final
> Report.
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
>
> Senior Policy Director
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Confidentiality Notice
> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is
> intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it
> is addressed. This communication may contain information that
> is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise
> legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named
> addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy
> or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email:vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email:vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150720/e42f2207/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list