[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Jul 21 14:30:54 UTC 2015
I dont know how you interpret what I said to be, commenter says A, but
clearly does not understand the issue, so he really means B.
What I am trying to say (obviously ineffectively, and apologies to all
english-as-second-language speakers who are having trouble following
this thread) is:
1. Many people said they think release of their data should be only
upon presentation of a court order, apparently
2. In fact, Court order procedures vary from state to state, and we do
not explain that anywhere in the report. Nor do the website generators.
3. When we consider the comment, which appears to be a widely held
view, we need to consider the reality of what a policy that reflected
that would have to accommodate (i.e. jurisdictional and procedural variance.
I do not believe that either twists the meaning of a public comment,
introduces my own preferred option, or anything else. the goal is to
further explicate what such a proposal would mean. A plus X, not A=B.
I am going to quit this now, but feel free to comment.
cheers Stephanie
On 2015-07-21 8:37, Williams, Todd wrote:
>
> No, that’s not what I said. We should review and consider every
> comment. But as we do so, we can’t change them to mean whatever we
> want them to mean. We have to take what they say at face value.
>
> In fact, I would argue that it’s more “dismissive” to read a comment
> and say:
>
> Well, the comment says A, but the commenter probably doesn’t
> “understand the complexity of what we are dealing with,” so instead
> I’m going to assume the commenter meant B.
>
> *From:*Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:27 AM
> *To:* Williams, Todd; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> So are you suggesting throwing them out? Because they dont understand
> the complexity of what we are dealing with, and make a simple
> recommendation that appears to be based on US law? If this is the
> case, I respectfully suggest that this is dismissive of public
> comment, which is the central point of my remarks below. If on the
> other hand, we include the recommendation in our report, we could of
> course discuss the pros and cons. I believe that would be the fair
> thing to do.
> By the way, most of us are not law enforcement experts here, nor are
> we jurisdictional experts. So while I raised of couple of examples of
> why (2) was different and more problematic than (1), my goal was to
> explicate the ways they were different, not to disqualify the comments
> because they were not framed as a legal argument.
> SP, always with the caveat that I am not a lawyer.
>
> On 2015-07-21 8:15, Williams, Todd wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephanie. I don’t think we can re-interpret the comments
> to mean whatever we want them to mean. If they argued for a
> proposal for which we cannot reach consensus (either because the
> proposal won’t fly legally, for the reasons that you pointed out,
> or because it won’t fly economically, for the reasons that Volker
> pointed out), then I don’t think it’s our place to re-cast what
> they argued into something else, or try to divine their intent in
> order to “take their comments as an expression” of something
> else. I’m not even sure how we would do that.
>
> *From:*Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:03 AM
> *To:* Williams, Todd; 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
>
> I dont hold the public to the same standards as, for instance,
> legal counsel who are there to assist me in legislative drafting.
> So I don't expect all the people who wrote in to understand that
> while in principle we should demand court orders, there are
> options for exigency. Neither should we expect them to understand
> the powers of, for instance, the French intelligence agencies.
> So what I am saying is, we should take their comments as an
> expression of strong preference for only releasing with proper
> legal authority, Does that sound fair?
> I don't think we have a right to question the substantive value of
> a comment....we have a responsibility to ensure we recommend what
> is legal and practical and affordable and fair.
> Long and convoluted answer to what was a simple question....my
> apologies.
> cheers SP
>
> On 2015-07-20 16:01, Williams, Todd wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephanie. Assuming that what you outlined below is
> accurate, I think that means that you and Volker have now
> identified two good reasons for us to question the substantive
> value of any comment arguing that “no one’s personal
> information should be revealed without a court order”:
>
> 1)Because such a standard is not economically feasible for P/P
> Providers, as Volker has pointed out; and
>
> 2)Because such a standard would not “fly” legally in some
> jurisdictions, as you’ve pointed out.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> *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
> *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 1:25 PM
> *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
>
> 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>
> [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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20150721/6bc77596/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list