[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 10 March 2015 at 1500 UTC

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Mon Mar 16 04:12:51 UTC 2015

FYI. Interesting story on a privacy service failure...


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:49 PM
To: Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 10 March 2015 at 1500 UTC

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 10 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-10mar15-en.mp3

On page:


The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:



Frank Michlick - Individual

Justin Macy - BC

Val Sherman - IPC

Griffin Barnett - IPC

Kathy Kleiman - NCSG

Darcy Southwell - RrSG

Todd Williams - IPC

David Heasley - IPC

Steve Metalitz - IPC

Graeme Bunton - RrSG

Jim Bikoff - IPC

Holly Raiche - ALAC

Vicky Scheckler - IPC

Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC

Volker Greimann - RrSG

Alex Deacon -IPC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Carlton Samuels - ALAC
Stephanie Perrin - NCSG

James Bladel - RrSG

Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG

Richard Leaning -  no soi

Susan Kawaguchi - BC

Terri Stumme - BC

Phil Corwin - BC

Luc Seufer - RrSG

Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP

David Hughes - IPC

Chris Pelling - RrSG

Apologies :

Don Blumenthal - RySG

Michele Neylon- RrSG

Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG

Paul McGrady - IPC

ICANN staff:

Marika Konings

Mary Wong
Terri Agnew

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives:

Wiki page:


Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri Agnew


 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 10 March 2015

   Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 10 March 2015

  Graeme Bunton:Good morning all

  Holly Raiche:Morning all

  Kathy:Hi All!

  Bladel:Morning everyone.  Welcome to DST, for those who believe in such things. :)

  Luc Seufer:Good afternoon to those one the civilised part of the world! :-P

  Holly Raiche:So what is the 'civililsed' part of the world?

  Darcy Southwell:Good morning!

  Terri Agnew:Jim Bikoff, David Heasley, Kiran Malancharuvil

  Philip Corwin:Good morning. because of the time shift for those of us in the USA I am going to have to leave this call for another in 30 minutes.

  Luc Seufer:Up to you Holly, I am just trolling

  Terri Agnew:have all joined

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Darcy Southwell

  Philip Corwin:When will we have an update on the possible F2F in BA? I would like to make my travel arrangements soon and it's difficult to do so absent that information. Thanks

  Mary Wong:If anyone has any comments on the new edits, please just let us know soonest.

  Marika Konings:For those that did not provide their input to the doodle poll yet, please see http://doodle.com/782mf9fgfrwyrszp

  Kathy: @Mary, probably edits when big picture issues out of the way...

  Luc Seufer:reg. II A. (2) could we modify it so that a copy of the complaint be provided to Provider and not only the proof of use of the relay function.

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, thanks! In the meantime, if there are comments on what was updated based on last week's call, just let us know.

  Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - Happy to join in

  steve metalitz:Because of the time zone shifts, the second half of this call conflicts with a previously scheduled IPC meeting.  Apologies that I will have to drop off then.

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Stephanie Perrin

  Graeme Bunton:Are we also losing other members of IPC?

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Osvaldo Novoa

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late

  Stephanie Perrin:Sorry to be late, no internet connection so life is complicated this morning.

  Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio

  Holly Raiche:@KLathy - good summary

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels

  Carlton Samuels:Howdy everybody

  Carlton Samuels:Apologies for late arrival

  Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1

  Carlton Samuels:The issue is not to absolve but to help a provider if they think they do need it

  Carlton Samuels:Call this an abundance of caution

  Volker A. Greimann:did Kathy drop?

  Stephanie Perrin:Howdy Carlton!

  Graeme Bunton:i can hear her

  Stephanie Perrin:Stephanie dropped....on a rickety phone blaster which goes in and out...

  Stephanie Perrin:You dont have to say yes to every group that pops up.

  Mary Wong:@Stephanie, that is true - and we understand this is an early stage fleshing out of the possibility. Nonetheless, when we start to think about setting up "advisory groups" for "non-legal disputes" it's hard to see how to draw the line.

  Mary Wong:Also, as Steve noted, this may be something that would be more acceptable if it's industry-led ... sort of like "self regulation" in other realms.

  Carlton Samuels:@Mary: Point well taken.  The objective is to help providers deal with that registrant in that knotty fringe group for - and I hate to use this term 'fair and balanced' response. It allows the provider to second guess when they are conflicted

  Stephanie Perrin:I understand that Mary.  I think the problem as we see it is that fundamental human rights issues are not getting the adivice and policy treatment that they merit....they are being treated like all the other economic issues.

  Volker A. Greimann:+1 graeme

  Bladel:That was exactly what I was intending to raise, Graeme.

Mary Wong:@Stephanie, all - wouldn't the so-called "bad actor" providers either just punt to the panel all the time, or have no incentive to use one at all on the other hand?

  Carlton Samuels:This would not be a free for all.  There must be some determination by the provider that the case elicited an 'Um.....' and it would be useful to get a second opinion

  Mary Wong:@Carlton, hence my latest question about why would providers use the panel.

  Stephanie Perrin:That is why you have a screening process....a relatively junior employee, when trained, can screen these kinds of calls.  Data protection offices do it all the time, and I can tell you what grade level of employee does it, and what the job description and required skills/knowledge are.

  Philip Corwin:Bye

  Holly Raiche:@ Mary - the proposed panel or whatever would have the resources that may not be available to the provider - to stave off a provider just saying yes because they are unsure

  Mary Wong:@Stephanie, so this is envisaged as someone on ICANN staff who does the screening?

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Chris Pelling

  Holly Raiche:If we could be confident tha, when in doubt, just say no, we'd be happy.  The wworry if it is all too hard, someone just says yes

  Chris Pelling:Hi all, sorry for lateness - dentist :/

  Carlton Samuels:To my mind the knotty ones come in view when there are competing 'rights' and to figure out which gets the benefit of doubt for the "no, I shan't reveal'.

  vicky sheckler:note that proposal requires full contant info of complainant, plus penalty of perjury language on allegation. then, the service provider has some discretion on when to reveal w/in certain parameters

  vicky sheckler:what about the human rights of the creators of the content  whose livelihood is being taken away b/c their content is blatently stolen?  This is trying to find a practical solution with checks / safety valves.

  Holly Raiche:@ Vicky - we are also trying to find a practical solution for both sides of this issue

  Chris Pelling:ringing noise ?

  Terri Agnew:@all, we are locating the line

  Stephanie Perrin:@Vicki exactly...the reveal request provides for only one side of the human rights issue, the content holder, in your example.

  Stephanie Perrin:Mary if we do that, then we have to punt on the reveal request issue as well.

  vicky sheckler:stephanie - your proposal discounts creators human rights.  teh category F proposal provides to provide checks and balances consisten with some mechanims that have worked in other contects in the past while not significantly increasing p/p proivder costs

  Holly Raiche:@ Mary - I'd be very sad if an ICANN WG can not at lease recognise and ry to deal with the larger issues

  Mary Wong:@holly, I didn't mean that we wouldn't recognize it. I meant that we DO recognize it but that possibly full resolution needs to be part of a broader discussion.

  Holly Raiche:@ Mary - maybe this is one of he places we need to have a larger discussion

  Holly Raiche:Maybe part of the solution is REQUIRING and p/P provider to spell out exactly when they will reveal

  Mary Wong:@Holly, again, not discounting importance - but the larger ramifications are beyond the remit of this WG on our specific issue. That's why I thought it might be helpful for us to explicitly recognize the problem in our report, but that we also recgnize that the best solution needs more discussion/broader input/time.

  Stephanie Perrin:Vicki I dont think you are quite understanding our position....if a creator is not getting a reveal, or is decided against in an expert panel, they can always take their case with the privacy case.  He, in other words, has rights.  If the end user (domain user/owner) does not have this option, his rights are being decided by those with an extremely strong financial interest in not defending his rights .

  Stephanie Perrin:Privacy proxy service provider, i meant (instead of privacy case in line 4)

  Stephanie Perrin:What we are looking for is maintaining an equilibrium in rights here.

  Mary Wong:@Holly - that is already in the WG agreed recs, ie Providers must spell out the circumstances under which they reveal, in the customer agreement.

  vicky sheckler:agree w/ graeme re: way to move forward

  Stephanie Perrin:@mary, as was pointed out a few calls ago....by Michele, I believe....if providers are hit with too many costs, they will simply change their terms of service and dump the cliient.

  Mary Wong:Stephanie, understood - hence question about why providers would use this advisory group if it doesn't absolve them from liability (which we cannot do).

  Kathy:We also have a precedent of the Independent Obector taking on a very narrow type of important protections... very narrow!

  Stephanie Perrin:It saves them money.

 Stephanie Perrin:I think if you check the EWG report, we put some examples of edge cases in there.

  Holly Raiche:Maybe weall look at the EWG to see if we can bring some of that thinking here

  Stephanie Perrin:I have longer versions Holly, I will forward to our little subgroup.

  Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - Tks

  Kathy:Any easy questions, Graeme?

  Stephanie Perrin:What about the face to face meeting in BA

  Stephanie Perrin:thanks!

  dick leaning:bye all need to go to next meeting

  Kathy:Tx All for the discussion of these important issues.

  Holly Raiche:Thanks you GRaeme

  Frank Michlick:Thank you

  Luc Seufer:merci

  Darcy Southwell:Thank you

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9238 - Release Date: 03/06/15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150316/2b32d08b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list