[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Notes, action items from today's PP IRT meeting--feedback requested by 27 April
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Wed May 2 09:15:56 UTC 2018
Hi Peter,
I understand you points, but at this stage, you have nothing. Without
the accreditation program, there is no urgency requirement for any
providers except that laid down in the local laws they are subject to.
We are offering you a very reasonable turn-around time of one business
day, which is a lot more than what you have right now. Something is
better than nothing.
Your 72 hours are also a worst case scenario. Five days out of seven,
you will have a response in less than 24 hours.
And this is just a minimum guarantee. Providers that can respond more
quickly likely will do so. We just do not want a situation where we
overpromise something that cannot be reasonably delivered in every case.
Even one business day may be difficult for some providers.
If your choice were between our reasonable offer and the status quo,
what would you choose?
Volker
Am 01.05.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Roman, Peter (CRM):
>
> I have to admit that I do not see where this accusation of
> unwillingness to compromise is remotely accurate.
>
> The PSWG would like an immediate response. The providers would like
> to delay the response for up to 72 hours. 24 hours is a reasonable
> compromise. And it is a compromise that other stakeholders in other
> agreements have also reached and seem comfortable with. 72 hours vs.
> 1 or 2 is an enormous difference. And 24 hours vs. 1 or 2 hours is
> also an enormous difference, but we are willing to take 24 hours in
> the hopes of reaching an agreement.
>
> Furthermore, my understanding when I joined this IRT was that 24 hours
> was already the agreed upon compromise. Then, my understanding when
> we met in the small group session in Puerto Rico was that the
> providers were willing to work with 24 hours provided that we could
> give you all sufficient comfort with some of the surrounding issues
> (like when saying no was acceptable). We have, by and large, accepted
> all of the providers’ suggestions for the issues surrounding the
> emergency disclosure request except where they completely undercut the
> rest of the emergency disclosure language. And yet, the providers
> continue to push for a 72 hour window AND all of the other concessions.
>
> The PSWG would be willing to compromise on a 24 hour response time,
> with the other language that the providers require to be comfortable.
> We are not willing to take 72 hours, but then you are not willing to
> take 2 hours, so we are at an impasse. This is not because the PSWG
> does not want to compromise, but because the providers do not.
>
> 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 *Volker
> Greimann
> *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 5:13 AM
> *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
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
>
> **
>
> *image001*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional
> corporation*
>
> T: +1.202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <http://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 | **Go**Daddy^™ *
>
> *sbockey at godaddy.com* <mailto: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
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amy
> Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>>
> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>"
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:53 AM
> *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>"
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>
>
> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20180502/ff756bb6/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/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20180502/ff756bb6/image001-0001.gif>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list