[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Example Use case

Tue Jul 26 11:30:01 UTC 2016

I think we should assume that recommendations of the proxy/privacy PDP will be ratified by the Board.  (It will be unprecedented and controversial if they are not). Although once a Consensus Policy  gets ratified by the Board, it sometimes takes years for the exact implementation to be worked out and the Policy to actually go into effect.  Still, the proxy/privacy PDP recommends some specific things and those are known, even if the exact executional details are not.
--Greg

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 2:18 PM
To: 'karnika' <karnika at sethassociates.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Example Use case

Thank you Karnika for putting forward a draft that we can work from.

Regarding Michele’s point, the overarching question may be how granular do we want the use case examples to be?  I would think that, at a minimum, we would wish to distinguish between the case where the requesting party (“A,”  though there is a reference to “X” in the first line) is a law enforcement officer acting in that capacity, and where A is a private party (whether an individual or a “legal person” such as a company).  These are probably two different use cases.  Michele’s question is whether we should further subdivide this based on the type of illegal or “legally actionable” conduct involved.  I certainly agree that (to use his example) defamation might be handled differently from identity theft; but if the RDS user in both cases is a private party, do they need to be separate use case examples?  Same question if in both cases “A” is law enforcement.

One additional point on granularity:  there might be two separate use cases even in the private party requester (A=private party) situation, depending on whether A is seeking to contact the registrant, or is simply seeking to identify an address where the registrant can be served with legal process.   I believe the former case is far more common than the latter, but both could occur, and they ought to be treated separately because the latter would seemingly require data with different characteristics than the former.

Stephanie’s question goes (among other things) to Karnika’s last paragraph.  Where the registrant is using a proxy registration service, should we assume that the proposed consensus policy regarding accreditation now pending before the ICANN board will be in place?  Or should we assume the status quo?  This could change the nature of the use case.

Steve Metalitz

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of karnika
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 2:40 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Example Use case

Thankyou Stephanie and Michele for your valuable  inputs. I think we should discuss this in next meeting so that other use cases can also be developed accordingly.

Regards,

Karnika Seth

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: 24 July 2016 23:27
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Example Use case

Just as a question, when we do use cases are we supposed to put in hypotheticals or talk about them as they are now?  Eg tiered access does not exist at the moment, do we imagine our use cases as we would like to see them?  Sorry not to have been paying close enough attention to this.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-07-24 12:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Karnika

Thanks for the example.

In order to make it easier to process use cases I’d recommend you break them out as specifically as possible.

So defamation would be quite different to identity theft.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of karnika <karnika at sethassociates.com><mailto:karnika at sethassociates.com>
Date: Saturday 23 July 2016 at 01:51
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Example Use case

Dear All,

I have prepared an Example Use case which is attached herewith. Please feel free to comment and give your inputs so that we can discuss it in our future meetings.

With Regards,

Karnika Seth
Attorney at law. & Founding Partner

SETH ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES  AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

,
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D1E682.2155E7B0]

(O): B- 10, Sector 40, Noida-201301, N.C.R, India.  (Mon-Sat, 9.30 am-6 pm)
Tel: + 91(120) 4352846,4331304 ,
Mob: + 91 9810155766
Fax: + 91 (120) 4331304.
Website: www.sethassociates.com<http://www.sethassociates.com>,www.lexcyberia.com<http://www.lexcyberia.com>
E-mail: mail at sethassociates.com<mailto:mail at sethassociates.com>, mail at lexcyberia.com<mailto:mail at lexcyberia.com>

Computers, Internet & New Technology Laws by Karnika Seth, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,2013<http://www.lexisnexis.in/computers-internet-and-new-technology-laws-2013.htm>
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D1E682.2155E7B0]<http://in.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110>  [cid:image003.jpg at 01D1E682.2155E7B0] <https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1>  Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1> [cid:image004.jpg at 01D1E682.2155E7B0] <https://twitter.com/karnikaseth>  Twitter<https://twitter.com/karnikaseth>

_______________________________________________

gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list

gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160726/e4ebd1ae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6313 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160726/e4ebd1ae/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 982 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160726/e4ebd1ae/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 904 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160726/e4ebd1ae/image003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 878 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160726/e4ebd1ae/image004.jpg>