[Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Chuck
consult at cgomes.com
Tue Nov 7 17:51:04 UTC 2017
Note that Steve agrees with Paul and Farell with one exception. He made an
insert in the 4th bullet under Users that is highlighted in the attached.
Please let me know today if anyone has a problem with this.
Reminder, any additional edits are due by end of day today.
Chuck
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 8:22 AM
To: 'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com>
Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Chuck, thanks for sharing this document, which is very thorough and
comprehensive. I agree that all the use cases we identified for "export" to
DT6 are covered, with one exception: the merchant monitoring service use
case provided by Terri Stumme to our working group last year, and
consistently identified in our DT5 drafts. This use case can be found at
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries
%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie
s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600
0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2.
To cure this omission I have suggested inserting three words in the fourth
bullet under "users." (See attached) (The relevant task is more or less
described in item 4 of Annex A, but the user carrying out that task in the
use case put forward by Terri is not identified anywhere in the DT6 draft ,
and I think is sufficiently distinct from those that are identified that I
would support its explicit inclusion.)
Steve
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met at msk.com> met at msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT,
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR
COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY
BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL
ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: Chuck [mailto:consult at cgomes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 8:07 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org>
Subject: FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Importance: High
Steve,
Please take note of Paul's comment below. He believes that the uses cases
you cite are already sufficiently covered in the Legal Actions document. I
attached it so you can see whether you agree. Please let me know what you
think and I will pass your thoughts on to the DT5 list.
Chuck
From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es]
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 4:35 AM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> >;
gnso-rds-pdp-6 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6 at icann.org>
Cc: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Importance: High
I think these are already sufficiently incorporated in what we have for
WG6.
Paul
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Chuck
<consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> >
Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 11:17 PM
To: <gnso-rds-pdp-6 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6 at icann.org> >
Cc: <GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org> >
Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] FW: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
DT6 members,
Please note that DT5 suggests that the following use cases be included in
the DT6 (Legal Actions) deliverable instead of the Contractual Enforcement
deliverable. Are there any objections to me adding them? Note that the
Contractual Enforcement deliverable has been changed to ICANN Contractual
Enforcement. Please let me know if you have any concerns not later than end
of day tomorrow (Tuesday).
Chuck
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 11:38 AM
To: 'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> >; 'Kris
Seeburn' <seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com> >
Cc: lisa at corecom.com <mailto:lisa at corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings'
<bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> >;
GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Chuck, per discussion just now in DT 5, here are the use cases we are
EXCLUDING from the contractual compliance paper (now to be re-named ICANN
Contractual Compliance), and that should be picked up as use cases in the
Legal Actions paper:
use cases generated either by the EWG, see
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20%
20> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work,
(see
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries
%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie
s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600
0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2);
and also the following developed during our deliberations:
Using registration data to seek to ascertain the identity and location of
the operator (or domain name registrant responsible for) a website on which
A's intellectual property rights are being exercised. For example, this
could involve use of A's trademark in logos displayed on the site; offers
for sale of merchandise bearing A's trademark; making available for download
or streaming movies or sound recordings for which A holds the copyright;
etc. This is a necessary first step to determining whether the operator (or
registrant) is a licensee with respect to the intellectual property in
question, and if so, whether the use of the intellectual property exceeds
the scope of the license (e.g., because of territorial restrictions in the
license). Alternatively, if A determines that the operator/registrant is
not a licensee, this is a necessary first step in seeking contractual
enforcement of terms of service by the registrar/registry, and/or
potentially ICANN contractual enforcement of registrar/registry obligations
to investigate and take appropriate action.
Steve
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met at msk.com> met at msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT,
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR
COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY
BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL
ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: Chuck [mailto:consult at cgomes.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Kris Seeburn'
Cc: lisa at corecom.com <mailto:lisa at corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings';
GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Thanks for the very helpful feedback Steve. My intent was not to eliminate
any use cases but rather to differentiate between Regulatory action and
Contractual Enforcement. I don't think that third parties enforce the
agreements, but they can and are a source that assists ICANN Contractual
Compliance so maybe we need to word it in a way that includes that.
As I said in a different email a few days ago, the DT5 team (Regulatory or
Contractual Enforcement) suggested that the Regulatory & Legal Actions
purposes could be combined into one. How do DT5 team members feel about
that? Note that I put that on the agenda for our call tomorrow.
I am happy to see that my edits generated discussion. In the end the team
needs to decide what to do, not me.
Steve - if you want to revise the language to deal with any of these issues,
I think that would be very helpful before our call tomorrow. And please do
not feel obliged to use my edits.
Chuck
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 2:33 PM
To: 'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> >; 'Kris
Seeburn' <seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com> >
Cc: lisa at corecom.com <mailto:lisa at corecom.com> ; 'Bastiaan Goslings'
<bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> >;
GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Chuck's suggested change re contractual enforcement would eliminate
consideration of a number of use cases generated either by the EWG, see
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf%20%
20> , pages 9, 24, 28), or by this WG in an earlier phase of our work,
(see
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries
%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20querie
s%20for%20compliance%20purposes.docx?version=1&modificationDate=147010910600
0&api=v2> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2).
Our earlier draft identified five examples of entities using RDS for
contractual enforcement purposes: "These entities include governmental tax
authorities, UDRP providers, the ICANN organization, intellectual property
owners, and merchant account monitoring solution providers, among others."
Chuck's proposed change would move the first of these to the regulatory
enforcement category (I support that), but would eliminate the second,
fourth and fifth examples. It would recognize the contractual enforcement
use only when ICANN was a party to the contract (the third example).
Chuck, if your point is that these uses fit better under "legal actions"
than under "contractual enforcement," then I would be OK with that so long
as they are explicitly addressed under "legal actions." I think they fit
better under "contract enforcement" because they in fact involve enforcement
of contracts; but if the investigation supported by RDS data indicates a
breach of contract, then the result may be a "legal action," i.e., a
lawsuit.
I would be quite concerned however if these important uses were not captured
either in "contract enforcement" nor in "legal actions." Maybe Chuck or
Lisa could advise us whether that is or is not the case.
Steve Metalitz
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met at msk.com> met at msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT,
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR
COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY
BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL
ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: Chuck [ <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> mailto:consult at cgomes.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:39 AM
To: 'Kris Seeburn'
Cc: Metalitz, Steven; <mailto:lisa at corecom.com> lisa at corecom.com; 'Bastiaan
Goslings'; <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org> GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Importance: High
I arrived home last night and am trying to catch up. Can someone please
send me the latest Word versions and the links to the Google Docs for both
deliverables?
Also, regarding the definitions, I have been thinking about them and suspect
that some WG members will have problem with the word 'collected' so I
suggest that we consider using the word 'used' instead. And for Contractual
Enforcement I question whether we should refer to Private Party Contracts
because ICANN Compliance does not have any enforcement ability with Private
Party Contracts so I edited that. They would then read as follows:
Contractual Enforcement
Information used to enable ICANN Compliance to monitor and enforce
contracted parties' agreements with ICANN, as well as resolving issues of
compliance arising from issues raised by private parties.
Regulatory
Information used to enable contact between the registrant and/or their
designated point of contact and regulatory entities to ensure compliance
with applicable laws.
Please feel free to comment on these suggested edits before our call on
Monday.
Finally, here is a listing from the Wednesday meeting that summarizes our
tasks:
o Summarize each purpose in one sentence:
"Information collected to enable contact between the registrant and <who>
<to accomplish what>"
o Think in terms of explaining to the data subject why data is being
collected for this purpose - keep it concise and simple.
o Are the tasks/users identified by your team so diverse and distinct
that they may be more than one purpose? If so, split them up and describe
each purpose separately.
o Which purposes covered by other teams are closely related to or overlap
the purpose(s) covered by your team?
o Is there any data collected specifically for the stated purpose? Or
does that purpose use only data collected for other purposes?
If anyone has thoughts about any of these items, please share them with the
team; we will discuss them on our call.
Chuck
From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:37 PM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> >
Cc: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com> >; lisa at corecom.com
<mailto:lisa at corecom.com> ; Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
<mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> >; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org
<mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Update
Chuck looked up at your edits and made a few balancing facts. I am now
forwarding the updated latest document that we have worked on. We will also
be finding a way to work with the team who have worked on "Legal" and i
think we may need at some point work with the "investigation" team which in
reality also matches with both the enforcement and regulatory. Just some
suggestions. They will be good additions to our work. In fact i feel there
are areas that overlap which may be the connection points to the whole of
each group. But that would be a later stage approach.
I think we need to update and push it to the google docs now so that
everyone sees the same versioning as we move. Suggestions: Use cases as
Appendix to the documents. Anything else to grow the document and
understanding can be laid out as an appendix to each document.
Another area that we may add at a later stage is "new gtld auction proceeds"
they may be within contractual enforcement and some other groups.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-6 mailing list
Gnso-rds-pdp-6 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rds-pdp-6 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-6/attachments/20171107/98b8ed79/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-6/attachments/20171107/98b8ed79/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SJM tweak to DT6 document (9467248).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18550 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-6/attachments/20171107/98b8ed79/SJMtweaktoDT6document9467248-0001.docx>
More information about the Gnso-rds-pdp-6
mailing list