<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Todd and Val,<br>
Tx you for the discussion! I appreciate it and am glad to know to
know there are ways to address some of the concerns with
clarifying language. Val, thanks in particular for your guidance
on wording. All, I will sit down tomorrow, "track changes" and pen
in hand, and edit a version that hopefully clarifies
communications and defaults per our joint understanding! <br>
<br>
Re: Supoenas, the story seems to be a bit more complicated. I've
done some outreach this week to attorneys who spend a lot of time
with copyright identity disclosure supoenas. What they say is
that, yes, courts in the US rapidly issue a "reveal" subpoena, but
that is only the beginning of the story. The Provider who
receives the subpoena notifies its Customer. The Providers provide
time - generally 30 days or more -- for the the Customer to
respond. The Customers can then file on their own behalf in court
- a request to quash -- and/or the Provider can file in court to.
<br>
<br>
<br>
The following quote comes from Mitch Stoltz, Attorney with the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, and he summarizes his thoughts on
the "state of play" of copyright and similar subpoenas:<br>
<br>
==>There is an emerging consensus among courts around the U.S.
that merely accusing one who speaks anonymously on the Internet of
some violation of law (be it trademark, libel, or another law)
doesn’t strip the speaker of their right to speak anonymously. The
right of free expression requires a balancing of interests by an
impartial judge before anonymity can be stripped away. Because
Internet sites, and their domain names, are the preeminent medium
of free expression in the 21st century, the ability to register
and maintain a domain name anonymously is an essential part of
freedom of expression that must be protected through a similar
balancing of interests and a fair, neutral decisionmaking process.
An accusation that is legally deficient, vague, pretextual, or
harassing should not result in the identification of an anonymous
domain registrant, even if the registrant does not respond. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BY1PR0701MB160958E1313F1EC689E63E5A821C0@BY1PR0701MB1609.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1271400249;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1709005618 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:49.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:85.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:121.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:157.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:193.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:229.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:265.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:301.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:337.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Let
me add my thanks Kathy for circulating your thoughts, which
I thought stimulated a good discussion on Tuesday. As I
mentioned on that call, I think most if not all of what
you’ve outlined goes to basic drafting
revisions/clarifications, rather than to substantive
disagreements. So with the goal of moving the process
forward in anticipation of next Tuesday’s call, perhaps we
as a WG can go through some of your substantive comments (I
don’t have an issue with your general comments)
point-by-point. I’ll start:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:49.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Misrepresentations</span></u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">.
Both FN1 and the Annex address possible methods of
resolving Provider claims of false
statements/misrepresentations. Certainly we as a WG should
discuss the various options in the Annex further. But that
discussion would presumably relate to the method, not to the
actual sanctions. I’m not sure that it’s within our ambit
as a WG (or ICANN’s?) to proscribe what the sanctions would
be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:49.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“Higher
bar.”</span></u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
In terms of the “much higher bar” – what would you
propose? You mentioned using the DMCA § 512(h) as a go-by,
but I think that’s actually a lower standard, not a higher
one. Not to get too into the weeds of the DMCA (which we’re
only really referencing here as a go-by), but my basic
understanding is that § 512(h)(4) says that as long as the
notice, subpoena, and declaration are in proper form, the
clerk “shall expeditiously issue” the subpoena, and that §
512(h)(5) says that the provider must then “expeditiously
disclose” the information required by the subpoena. So the
whole process is automatic: there’s no discretion or
substantive review by either the clerk or by the provider.
Conversely, the process outlined in III(B) of the proposal
that we’re considering gives the P/P Provider discretion to
either: 1) disclose; 2) refuse to disclose (and provide it’s
reasons why); or 3) ask for more time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:49.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Default</span></u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">.
As I mentioned on the call, I don’t read III(B) as requiring
disclosure in cases of default. Rather, if there is a
default (“after the time for Customer’s response has
passed”), the P/P Provider can
<b><i>either</i></b>: 1) disclose; 2) refuse to disclose
(and provide it’s reasons why); or 3) ask for more time. If
the Provider chooses Option (2) and the Requestor doesn’t
like the reasons the Provider gives as to why, the Requestor
can then request reconsideration under III(F). And if the
Provider still refuses, the matter can go to the
ICANN-approved dispute resolution process referenced in
FN4. But nowhere does Section III contemplate automatic
disclosure after default. I think that’s relatively clear
from the way that Section III is drafted and structured, but
if you want to propose clarifying language to make that
point more clear, please do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:49.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Third-party
independent review</span></u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">.
Section III(F) and FN4 already contemplate this. So I don’t
think the question on the table is <b><i>whether</i></b>
the proposal should allow for this (it does), but under what
circumstances. As Michele noted on the call on Tuesday,
requiring third-party independent review too often, or
otherwise making the process too convoluted, isn’t going to
help, because P/P Providers (who, as Michele noted,
typically don’t charge very much for the service) are just
going to draft their Terms of Service to say “if we get a
complaint about X then we’re going to terminate the service”
rather than going through the independent review. In light
of that, I think the proposal strikes the right balance on
the third-party independent review (basically, it’s
available, but only for the tough cases in which the
Provider has twice refused to disclose). But if you think
there is a way to adjust that balance, while still
accounting for Michele’s cost concern, let us know.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:49.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Privacy
of communication b/w Providers and Customers</span></u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">.
As I mentioned on the call, I don’t read III(E) as requiring
Providers to pass on communications from Customers to
Requestors verbatim; it just says that the Requestor must be
informed of the reasons for the objection by the Customer.
But if you want to add a clause to III(E) to make that more
clear, that’s fine. Would this tweak do it: “If refusal to
disclose is based on objection to disclosure by the
Customer, Provider must inform Requestor of the reasons for
objection, though Provider need not do so by relaying
Customer’s objection verbatim.”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Looking
forward to the call on Tuesday. Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><br>
Todd.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carlton Samuels; Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Cc:</b> PPSAI<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated document
re disclosure standards - some comments and concerns<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Good
observations, Kathy. Worthy of discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip
S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw
LLC</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155
F Street, NW</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite
1050</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington,
DC 20004</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/cell</span><span
style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter:
@VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Carlton Samuels<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Cc:</b> PPSAI<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated document re
disclosure standards - some comments and concerns<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans
MS"">Thanks for the heavy lifting here Kathy. I
belatedly read the document and I can tell you now your
arguments are compelling.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans
MS""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans
MS"">-Carlton<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
<i><span style="color:#33CC00">Strategy, Planning,
Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</span></i><br>
=============================<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Kathy
Kleiman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">First,
thank you, Steve, Graeme and All. I know a lot of people
have spent a lot of time in the IP and Registrar
Communities working on this draft. Tx you – and
appreciate your invitation to comments and concerns! <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
have reviewed the Draft carefully and have some initial
comments to share. Although I spoke with people in the
WG while preparing them, these comments are my own.(If
there is problem with the formatting below, please let
me know.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1. General Comments<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">a. `Let’s make the
wording more neutral. Let’s add “alleged” or “claimed”
in all references of infringement (e.g., trademarks,
copyrights of domain names/websites. Another good term
would be “claimed infringement” -- which is the one used
in similar sections of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act to the sections we are working on here.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2. More substantive comments<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">a. Are we missing
levels of protections for the Customer/Registrant? In
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), there were
two levels of protections for the “users.”
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in">
i.<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span>The first was sanctions for misrepresentation.
Basically, any company which knowingly materially
misrepresents that material or activity is infringing is
liable for damages, including costs and attorney fees
caused from injury resulting from the misrepresentation.
Don’t we need similar sanctions here?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in">
ii.<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span>A much higher bar for revealing the identity of
the alleged infringer. The DMCA allows rapid takedown
based on statements very similar to the one we
proposing, but Reveal is a whole different story. The
standard is much higher and goes through Court. Thus US
Copyright Code, Sec 512(h), requires a subpoena to
reveal data: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">a.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>[Section 512]
“(h) SUBPOENA TO IDENTIFY INFRINGER-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">`(1)
REQUEST- A copyright owner or a person authorized to act
on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any
United States district court to issue a subpoena to a
service provider for identification of an alleged
infringer in accordance with this subsection…
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in">Shouldn’t
we have a higher standard too? It seems important to
balance the rights of both sides, including whether the
Allegation of Illegality sufficiently outweighs the
Privacy Interests and Rights of the Battered Women’s
Shelter, Online Magazine or Bloggers posting unpopular
views of corruption.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span>iii. A deep concern about default. As I read
the rules, if you don’t respond, you lose and your data
is revealed. But this is a problem because we can think
of many reasons why Customers/Registrants would not
respond. For example:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">a.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Request came at
the beginning of August,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">b.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Request
disappeared into spam; <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">c.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Registrant/Customer
is unable to respond (perhaps language barriers); and/or<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">d.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Registrant/Customer
is scared to respond.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">2.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>I would submit
that in something as important as revealing identity and
physical locations, there should be no automatic
default. It is completely possible that a) the
allegations are incorrect on their face (no
jurisdictional overlap, for example), or b) that there
are clear defenses on “its face,” e.g., on the website.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Thus,
an anti-bullying group may post the copyrighted logo of
a gang engaging in bullying (or worse) in a local school
or neighborhood; is so, the gang’s allegation of
copyright infringement could be clearly weighed against
the “safe neighborhoods for all” activity taking place
on the website. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Similarly,
an online publication in Europe may have every right to
use the logo and trademark of a large multinational it
is criticizing, or the image of Mohammed, without having
its identity and address revealed without due process.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Ditto
for a battered women’s shelter posting a copyright logo,
motto or design and urging women to watch for it and
those bearing it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0in">Due process
is not automatic default, but a full and fair review of
the website and other reachable information, even if the
Customer/Registrant is unable to respond for herself or
himself.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:2.0in">3. Option: we might
consider Third Party or Independent Review. This is
something that Steve and Graeme’s draft have already
suggested for rejections of IP Owner Requests. It could
serve Customers too by creating a review of default
situations – or perhaps an independent forum for Service
Providers who choose to outsource this difficult
evaluation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:2.0in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in">
iv.<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span>Privacy of communication between Customers and
their Providers . The rules of Section III(A) seem to
bar private communication with your Provider. Everything
a Customer/Registrant might write to their Provider must
be passed on verbatim (if I read this correctly). But
that’s a problem for those with English as a second
language (or third) or those without lawyers, and those
simply trying to explain in clear and informal language
to explain this situation. 0What will happen, I am
concerned, is that whatever informal response a Customer
provides to its Provider will operate (unintended) as an
Admission Against Interest or an unintended Waiver.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in">Further, the
Customer/Registrant might inadvertently reveal a bit
about their identity or even location – trying to
explain their position clearly to the Provider – and
this should not be passed on to the Requester
automatically either. I am not sure of th answer here
as IP Owners should know something about the response,
but not necessarily the full communication of the
Customer (e.g., he is stalking me).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thanks
for reading!
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Kathy
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3/2/2015 9:54 AM, Metalitz,
Steven wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">PPSAI
WG members,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Attached
please find an updated version of the document
Graeme and I circulated prior to last week’s
meeting. This updated version includes three or
four wording tweaks, intended to reflect the
discussion on last week’s call. Looking forward
to further discussion on tomorrow’s call.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve
Metalitz
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><Metalitz>,
Steven <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:met@msk.com" target="_blank">met@msk.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57<br>
<b>To: </b>"'PPSAI (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>)'"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
Category F -- updated status report and text for
discussion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#B5C4DF 4.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">PPSAI
WG members,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.
</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">We
look forward to the discussion of this
document among WG members.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Graeme
Bunton</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve
Metalitz</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">
Metalitz, Steven <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 03, 2015
3:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> PPSAI (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Category F -- status
report</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
WG colleagues,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Graeme
Bunton</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve
Metalitz</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center" noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No
virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9172 - Release
Date: 02/24/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>