[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)

[Roman, Peter (CRM)]

4.1.2 - I worry that the key phrase in future legal analysis here is not "reasonably refused" but "without limitations."  Therefore, the inclusion of the phrase "without limitations" effectively translates into "arbitrarily refused" or "refused because we are going to refuse all of these requests no matter how reliable they seem."  Is there some other more limited language that can be used to convey what you all are trying to do here?

On 4.1.2.5, it is hard to see how the Provider is going to investigate the emergency request and make the determination that it is not "well founded."  Are Providers going to send agents to the requesting country to do their own investigation?  Are Providers going to simply refuse all requests from certain countries?  If so, based on what evidence?  Is the fact that a Provider's own local law enforcement vouched for the request by transmitting it to the provider not sufficient?  Again, is there some other phrase, a little more clearly and narrowly tailored that can provide the protection the Providers seek?

On 4.1.6, I don't understand what we are trying to do here.  Local laws always apply (see 4.1.2.2), so whose due process does this refer to?  And since the request is being passed to the provider through local law enforcement, doesn't that mean that local legal requirements, including local due process, have already been met?  And if the provider does not trust local law enforcement, how is this language going to improve that?  It reads like 4.1.2, which is that it could be interpreted to mean that no emergency requests will ever be responded to.

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<mailto:peter.roman at usdoj.gov>

From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)

Dear Colleagues,

Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed.

I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT.

For reference, those sections and issues are:

Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item

Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4.

Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety.

Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere.

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<mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20180501/ef526487/attachment.html>