[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Chris Pelling
chris at netearth.net
Mon Apr 30 19:45:29 UTC 2018
I also agree with Sara's, Eric and Theo points.
Sent by Chris on the move.
-------- Original message --------From: theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> Date: 30/04/2018 20:28 (GMT+00:00) To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org, Eric Rokobauer <eric.rokobauer at endurance.com> Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Agreed with Eric and Sara, 4.2.6, we could move that one around
some.
4.2.2.5, I rather keep it in, it does not hurt and I 100% agree,
democracy is not a given.
Theo
On 30-4-2018 21:05, Eric Rokobauer
wrote:
Apologies
for the late reply in providing some feedback. Comments
following Sara's comments from 19 April:
Inclusion of "without limitations" in section 4.2.2 - I
agree with Sara here. Ideally again it is to cover the
Provider from potential instances that we here in this
IRT may not be recognizing here.
4.2.2.5 being potentially redundant - I believe this
should be removed if IRT does find to be redundant.
While I do appreciate Sara's comments, if we do all
agree there is duplication here with the statement, best
we remove to clear any potential confusion that could
come later (thinking when we may not necessarily
remember why we had this added in the first place).
4.2.6 - I agree that this is not redundant and
should still be kept, but open to having it included
elsewhere within section 4.2 if majority feels it would
be better represented.
As for the timeframe, agree that one business day
should be our default.
Thanks
Eric
Eric Rokobauer
Sr. Registrar Compliance
Manager | Endurance International Group
10 Corporate Drive,
Suite 300, Burlington MA 01803
T - 781.852.3445
E - eric.rokobauer at endurance.com
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Volker
Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
wrote:
If you are not willing to compromise, we may get
nowhere. If the line has to be drawn between this is
what is reasonably possible for us to deliver (meaning
everything beyond that is either unreasonable or
impossible) and this is what we (meaning the PSWG) want
because it is an artificial number we want, it seems
clear where the policy should end up.
So you are not willing to compromise and continue to
demand the impossible or unreasonable. Fine, but that is
not how this works at ICANN. Our compromise line is one
business day. If no one moves, we are at an impasse.
But please remember: Usually, you are going to get
answers quicker, it is just a minimum guaranteed
response time we are talking about. And anything you get
here - ANYTHING! - is better than what you have now. We
are not proposing to take anything away from you. We are
freely agreeing to give you something. Let's not lose
focus on this very important point.
Volker
Am
27.04.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
All,
A
quick additional response to the comments in
the LEA specification:
Note
7 says that “Registrar members of the IRT
contend that the 24-hour period recommended by
the PSWG is unworkable; PSWG members contend
that 24 hours should be the maximum allowable
time for a request to be actioned in an
emergency situation.”
This
is a complete misrepresentation of the PSWG
position. The PSWG has maintained from the
beginning of the conversation on emergency
requests that they needed to be “actioned”
immediately. The PSWG does NOT recommend the
24-hour period, the PSWG is willing to
COMPROMISE to the 24 hour period.
The
PSWG is NOT willing to compromise to the one
business day response time. One business day,
as the providers have explained it, means that
an emergency request delivered to the provider
on Friday afternoon does not need to be
responded to until Monday afternoon. So, one
business day means 72 hours or more. In an
emergency, this is completely useless response
time. By that time, people are dead. An
imminent threat to life means that somebody is
going to die any moment without this
information.
I
hope that you never have to respond to one of
these requests but I also hope that if you do,
you will not ignore it until you get to it the
next business day.
Peter
Roman
Senior
Counsel
Computer
Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal
Division
Department
of Justice
1301
New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-1323
peter.roman at usdoj.gov
From:
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:24 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl]
Notes, action items from today's PP IRT
meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Please
see in-line feedback below regarding some of
Sara’s points on the LEA specification.
On behalf of
Coalition for Online Accountability (COA)
| www.onlineaccountability.net
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his
professional corporation
T:
+1.202.355.7902 | met at msk.com
Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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:
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:36
PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl]
Notes, action items from today's PP IRT
meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Thanks, Sara and Steve, for
your comments on this draft thus far. I’ve
updated the draft to address your last point,
Sara, and in line with Steve’s comment about
separating out standard and high priority
requests. I’ve left the comments in the draft
from Tuesday’s call for now. Absent any strong
opposition to the inclusion of the other edits
proposed by Sara, as noted in the draft, these
will be accepted in the next draft.
I encourage all IRT
members to review the draft again when you are
able and provide any further feedback no later
than the end of next week.
I don’t have any further
information or materials for you today for next
week’s meeting, but I hope to have something for
you soon (I’ll send it as soon as I have it).
Best,
Amy
From:
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Sara Bockey
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:20
PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl]
Notes, action items from today's PP IRT
meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Regarding Section 4.2.2
“without limitations” is necessary to ensure
legitimate instances not yet listed or thought
of are covered. Examples of additional causes
beyond the control of the Provider: war,
terrorism, riots, power outage, internet outage,
internet failure, server failure, foreign gov’t
changes, labor disputes, etc.
Steve’s comment: (I
think this refers to 4.1.2 of the revised
document Amy sent out 4/17. ) This strikes
me as a reasonable list of reasons why a
provider would not be able to respond in a
timely fashion to an LEA disclosure request
(whether High Priority or Standard
Priority), but not of reasons to deny
altogether a request that otherwise meets
the requirements of the specification.
Should we append this list to what is now
4.1.4 (following “acts of nature”)? I would
be much more comfortable including “without
limitations” there rather than in 4.1.2.
Regarding Section 4.2.2.5 – I see no
issue with redundancy and there is no harm in
including this. If anything, it protects
against potential abuse (in parts of the world
that are less democratic)
Steve’s comment: This
refers to the “well founded” phrasing in
4.1.2.5. I still have trouble understanding
what would make a request that meets all the
requirements of the specification not “well
founded,” and believe I pointed out on the
April 17 call why this situation differs
from RAA 3.18.2 where “well-founded” appears
(in short, that the RAA does not define what
needs to go into an actionable LE request,
and this specification does). Can Sara or
others provide an example of when this
ground for refusal of an LEA request might
come into play?
Regarding Section 4.2.6 – Not
redundant and 100% necessary. Particularly for
providers in parts of the world that are less
democratic. We must remember this will be
applied globally. Belt and suspenders! At
ICANN61 this addition gave registrars that spoke
with me the most comfort.
Steve’s comment (this
refers to the “due process” language now
appearing in 4.1.6): I think it is
redundant and for that reason do not object
to it. “Foregoing due process within its
applicable jurisdiction” is really a subset
of 4.1.2.2, disclosure in contravention of
applicable law. Regarding the legitimate
concerns about “less democratic”
jurisdictions: remember that this entire
specification only applies to disclosure
requests received from LE authorities within
the provider’s own jurisdiction. If you
choose to establish the provider within a
“less democratic” jurisdiction, that
provider still has to follow the laws of
that jurisdiction, including the laws that
define what process is due in a particular
situation.
Finally, I note that Staff is
using the 24-hr timeframe as the default in the
document instead of one business day as agreed
by the registrars. Since one business day is
what the registrars have agreed to, should it
not be the default until otherwise determined?
Steve’s comments: I
have suggested putting the two options in
square brackets, don’t care which one is
listed first.
sara
bockey
sr.
policy manager | GoDaddy™
sbockey at godaddy.com
480-366-3616
skype: sbockey
This
email message and any attachments hereto
is intended for use only by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain
confidential information. If you have
received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender and
permanently delete the original and any
copy of this message and its attachments.
From:
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>
on behalf of Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org>
Reply-To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org"
<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at
10:53 AM
To: "gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org"
<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl]
Notes, action items from today's PP IRT
meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your
participation on today’s privacy/proxy IRT call.
For those who could not attend, I regret that we
were unable to record this meeting (an issue
with a new internal recording policy), but this
was a one-time issue and all future meetings
will be recorded. I’ve done my best to annotate
the LEA specification document with the items we
discussed, and have also attached the chat
transcript.
IRT Action Items
We are nearing the completion
of discussions on the LEA Specification. Other
than the item of clear disagreement among
members of the IRT—the time period for high
priority requests—we are largely in the refining
stage. To that end, we have a few final proposed
edits for the group to review and comment
on—including some edits that were originally
suggested by Sara Bockey a few weeks ago and
supported by many registrar members of the IRT.
If we don’t hear any opposition to these edits
that would warrant further discussion, we will
make these edits as requested in the draft we
publish for comment.
Today, we considered whether
the LEA Framework Specification would be clearer
if we reorganized it slightly, to make more
clear where processes apply to high priority
requests and when they don’t. I’ve included two
versions of the draft—the one with “orig” at the
end of the title—which includes the proposed
edits without reorganizing, and the
“reorganized” one. Please review both and
respond to the list with your thoughts about the
proposed reorganizing of this.
Please provide any
additional input you have on this draft no
later than next Friday, 27 April. Please note,
specifically, questions in the following
sections:
Original
Numbering
Reorganized
Version
Section 2.1.10
(addition of “except in high priority”
language at beginning of edit)
Same section
Section 3.2.1
(addition of the words “Standard
Priority” to make clear this 2 business
day receipt process doesn’t apply in
high priority cases)
Moved to Section
3.2.2
Section 4.2.2
(inclusion of “without limitations”
language, plus input about and question
from Steve Metalitz—any other reasons
that registrars feel would be reasonable
for refusing disclosure?); Also see
feedback, generally, from PSWG liaison,
in meeting chat transcript (most pasted
into specification document but cuts off
at the end)
Same section
Section 4.2.2.5
(is this redundant? )
Same section
Section 4.2.6
(is this redundant?)
Same section
I’m also attaching the most
recent draft de-accreditation procedure
document. As mentioned on the list last week,
upon further consideration on the ICANN org side
we think we should add back in the proposed
transition procedure for customers impacted by
the de-accreditation or termination of a
third-party provider (section 4). Please review
and provide any further comments on this no
later than 27 April.
For next week, we are hoping
to have the requested fees information ready for
you to discuss. I’ll update you as soon as I
can.
Best,
Amy
Amy E. Bivins
Registrar Services and
Engagement Senior Manager
Registrar Services and
Industry Relations
Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct: +1 (202)
249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
Email: amy.bivins at icann.org
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20180430/da458987/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list