<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">Hi Don:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">Kathy's 'we' refers a small group of us - Holly, Stephanie, Kathy, David [Cake] and myself - who have [self] selected to watch the interests of the registrant/user community. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Don M. Blumenthal <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmb@donblumenthal.com" target="_blank">dmb@donblumenthal.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks, Kathy.<br>
<br>
I have some possibilities in mind but, for clarity, can you give an idea<br>
of who "we" refers to?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Don<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On 3/8/2015 10:41 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
> Dear All,<br>
> We deeply appreciate the discussion of this past week and look forward<br>
> to the discussion this week. It looks like good progress has been made<br>
> on the issues of default and communications with Providers. Tx you!<br>
><br>
> There are, however, a few additional issues that need to be addressed,<br>
> some gaps in this important Reveal text. The purpose of this email is<br>
> to highlight the gaps and some solutions to them.<br>
><br>
> 1) The tough questions.<br>
> We are deeply concerned about the most difficult questions that will<br>
> pass through this Reveal process - the ones in which copyright and<br>
> trademark allegations are being used to stifle criticism and speech.<br>
> The ones in which hard standards are being taken against political<br>
> corruption, in favor of persecuted and minority political, religious,<br>
> ethic and sexual expression, and in which news ideas, concepts and<br>
> concerns are being shared that threatened the establishment, the<br>
> incumbents, the powerful.<br>
><br>
> These cases to not happen everyday, but when they do, these cases work<br>
> with vital freedom of expression, free speech & competition issues.<br>
> Revealing the identity of such speakers could not only suppress the<br>
> speech to which they are entitled, but expose protected addresses and<br>
> locations of political, religious, ethnic and sexual minorities to<br>
> harassment or worse. Several in our WG have used the Church of<br>
> Scientology example because anyone who posts their materials (however<br>
> small the snippet) faces criticism as a "copyright infringer" and the<br>
> wrath of a well-funded entity. Many large business seek to squelch<br>
> young competitors with "trademark infringement" allegations even in<br>
> the countries where competition allows the direct naming and<br>
> critiquing of your competitor's products and services. Wendy Seltzer<br>
> set up the "Chilling Effects" database years ago expressly for these<br>
> letters and this concern...<br>
><br>
> What we gather from Providers is that these Reveal Requests are<br>
> difficult and expensive to process -- that there is significant cost<br>
> in time and money to evaluate these questions closely. What we expect<br>
> is that even the best corporate counsel does not necessarily have a<br>
> specialty in areas of international Freedom of Expression rights, Free<br>
> Speech evaluations and international competition laws (and that's<br>
> fair!) So these cases take a lot of time to research (and $$$). Yet,<br>
> these are the questions in which minority speech, political<br>
> expression, and controversial ideas -- protected classes worldwide --<br>
> rests. We respectfully request that it is not fair to ask Providers to<br>
> incur the costs of a Freedom of Expression investigation - but neither<br>
> is it fair to allow the rights of minority speakers, "fringe groups"<br>
> and other protected groups and individuals to go under-assessed or<br>
> under-evaluated.<br>
><br>
> So for these tough and questions, and to make Providers' lives easier<br>
> and cheaper, we propose a safety valve: the creation of a group of<br>
> Freedom of Expression/Free Speech/Competition Attorneys (at least 1<br>
> from each Region) to sit on a "Complex Case Advisory Group." Solely at<br>
> the Provider's discretion, a matter could be sent to this group for<br>
> rapid review -- and a response shared for the Provider's<br>
> consideration. Nothing binding. An outsourcing of the most difficult<br>
> (and expensive) problems for evaluation and input.<br>
><br>
> We are certain ICANN has the funds for this and should be willing to<br>
> support this advisory-only group. This would be an addition to<br>
> Section III, Service Provider Action on Request.<br>
><br>
> 2) Appeals<br>
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Both groups should<br>
> be allowed to file appeals - both the Requestor whose request is<br>
> turned down and the Customer whose Reveal is granted over his/her/its<br>
> objections. In order to stop the floodgates of too many appeals, we<br>
> propose a "loser pays" system with a clear and specified deference (by<br>
> the decision-maker) to the Provider. We also propose that the body to<br>
> which this goes to be a neutral one with - with clear history and<br>
> expertise in Freedom of Expression, Intellectual Property and<br>
> Competition Law. Of course, this proceeding should, of course, be<br>
> completely online. (Additions to III.F)<br>
><br>
> 3) Sanctions<br>
> We would like to see more discussion of this - what might be done to<br>
> prevent the frivolous or unfounded Requestors from continuing abusive<br>
> patterns within and across Providers. Frivolous requests are an undue<br>
> cost to the Provider and ones that put Customer into real frenzies of<br>
> work and response. While we continue to think hard about this matter,<br>
> we propose at this time a small addition to Section I(B) that would<br>
> expressly allow Providers to share among themselves information about<br>
> Requestors they feel are/have misused the system (such as vi: Nothing<br>
> shall prevent providers from sharing data...).<br>
><br>
><br>
> We look forward to the discussions this week. As the draft before us<br>
> took many weeks in its formation, we appreciate the time and<br>
> opportunity to evaluate it now -- with the full WG!<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Kathy<br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>