<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
And replying to my own comment, may I repeat the heart of Carlton's
response, my emphasis added on parts I consider key:<br>
<pre wrap="">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. T<big><big>he fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]</big></big>
Following on, it is compelling that <big><big>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.
</big></big>
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.<big><big> Trust and verify.</big></big>
<big><big>There cannot be a trust deficit from the requestor's side. Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. </big></big>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.
</pre>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-03-30 22:13, Stephanie Perrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:551A02C7.50402@mail.utoronto.ca" type="cite">If
I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by
the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of
his other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled".
If you read past the first line, he was pointing out that
reasonable people on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must
compromise and find a way to accommodate each other.
<br>
I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly. How
do we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is
legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is
not unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a
deluge of requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to
explain why they have a right to privacy.
<br>
Seems doable to me, given time and patience.
<br>
cheers Stephanie
<br>
<br>
On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks Holly. My question to Carlton was
not a substantive response to your comments. It was a question
to seek clarification as to whether or not any substantive
response that I may offer would automatically be written off as
"unreasonable." I see from your response that even my desire
for clarification on what Carlton meant results in being told
that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd like to continue
in dialogue in these important issues, but if the plan is to
simply shout down any views other than the one offered in your
email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure
that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think
it is in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to
date.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: Holly Raiche [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>]
<br>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM
<br>
To: Kiran Malancharuvil
<br>
Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI
<br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
<br>
<br>
Kiran and Paul
<br>
<br>
I am a bit disappointed by your responses. What Carlton and I
(and others) have been doing is simply explaining what we
believe should be required before personal details of the
beneficial registrant are revealed. It is absolutely in line
with basic privacy law and very much in line with the
discussions that have taken place - viz., what the requestor
should provide by way of information, and some confirmation of
the status of the requestor such that the reveal request is by
an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
<br>
<br>
That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
<br>
<br>
Holly
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com"><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I also eagerly await a clarification.
<br>
<br>
If there are members of the group that view their opinions as
dogma, rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise
useless, I can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
<br>
<br>
K
<br>
<br>
Kiran Malancharuvil
<br>
Internet Policy Counselor
<br>
MarkMonitor
<br>
415-419-9138 (m)
<br>
<br>
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
<br>
<br>
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D.
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com">PMcGrady@winston.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com"><mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com></a>>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Carlton,
<br>
<br>
What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good
reason"? I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will
have labeled me unreasonable in advance for doing so. Thanks
in advance for your thoughts/clarification.
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
Paul
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From:
<br>
<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@i">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i</a>
<br>
cann.org> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On
Behalf Of
<br>
Carlton Samuels
<br>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM
<br>
To: Holly Raiche
<br>
Cc: PPSAI
<br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
<br>
<br>
Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly
constituted
<br>
and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I
have
<br>
personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to
<br>
businesses and allow only individuals. I now support
<br>
non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules
apply
<br>
equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need
not know
<br>
the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are
<br>
conserved.]
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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 verify.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
-Carlton
<br>
<br>
<br>
==============================
<br>
Carlton A Samuels
<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799
<br>
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
<br>
=============================
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net"><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net></a>>
wrote:
<br>
Folks
<br>
<br>
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 ar
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
e
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> 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.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
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 thr
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
o
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> ugh 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.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">End my rant
<br>
<br>
Holly
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The contents of this message may be privileged and
confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in
error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of
this message is not intended to waive any applicable
privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the
permission of the author.
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please
delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is
not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not
disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>