[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 00:02:51 UTC 2015

Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.

FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable men and
women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric needs without
resorting to the court house. That requires balance.

It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all
rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally
abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only
individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so
long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is
one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules
are conserved.]

Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, it must
be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must
demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.

We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP
community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look
at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a
disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary. Trust and

There cannot be a trust deficit from the  requestor's side.  Attestation of
standing to make the request is an element of trust. Some worthy must stand
up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or
general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>

> Folks
> Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was just
> a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the days of
> ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team - who know
> this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over was Whois
> - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public repository
> of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict between the
> transmogrified requirement on registrars  to publish personal information
> of registrants as against the fundamental rights of individuals to protect
> their personal information unless there are established and accepted
> reasons otherwise.  The EWG is ICANN’s attempt to address that conflict -
> between information that can be made public, information that should not be
> public and information that should be revealed in limited circumstances to
> accredited individuals.  And until EWG recommendations are worked through
> and implemented, we are still dealing with the inherent conflict between a
> right to privacy and circumstances in which there is a countervailing
> obligation to reveal personal information. But the starting point must
> always be to protect privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and
> evidenced reason to reveal that information.
> What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we
> can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for
> revealing personal information.  Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at least
> in theory.  While the details need to be worked through, I haven’t heard
> anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking about
> either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity.  The IP
> cases are more difficult.  However, I think we have made really good
> progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service
> provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last bit
> is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the
> request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima
> facie case of infringement.
> I think we have all become aware of situations where  automated notices
> are generated alleging infringement.  Clearly, that must question the
> extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether
> there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of
> information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need to
> be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed off -
> not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who has
> enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for what
> would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights.  It is not about an
> equality between requestor and beneficial registrant.  The registrant has -
> a priori - the right to the protection of their personal information.  The
> onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to credibly establish the
> prima facie case to infringement of those rights to privacy.  As I have
> said, the language we have worked through goes a long way to meeting that.
>  What we are asking for is that the PERSON who stands behind such requests
> has enough authority within the organisation to do so. 'Authorised legal
> representative' has been suggested.  Happy if other words can be found.
> But what we want is for there to be a real, credible individual with the
> responsibility that can back up each individual request.
> End my rant
> Holly
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150330/6aef99f4/attachment-0001.html>

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