[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 19 August 2014 at 1400 UTC

Tue Aug 19 18:40:18 UTC 2014

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 19 August 2014 at 14:00 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140819-en.mp3

On page: 

 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

 <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees: 

Steve Metalitz - IPC

Graeme Bunton – RrSG

Val Sherman – IPC

Griffin Barnett – IPC

Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG

Frank Michlick – Individual

Volker Greimann-RrSG

Don Blumenthal – RySG

Holly Raiche – ALAC

David Heasley-IPC

Jim Bikoff-IPC

Carlton Samuels – ALAC

Keith Kupferschmid- IPC

James Bladel - RrSG

Michele Neylon – RrSG

Alex Deacon – IPC

Chris Pelling – RrSG

Luc Seufer- RrSG

Stephanie Perrin – NCSG

Daniel Burke – Individual

Tobias Sattler – RrSG

Roy Balleste – NCUC

Todd Williams – IPC

Kathy Kleiman – NCSG

Phil Corwin – BC

Justin Macy - BC

Phil Marano - IPC

Apologies:

Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG

Susan Prosser - RrSG

Christian Dawson-ISPCP

Sarah Wyld - RrSG

Susan Kawaguchi – BC

Kristina Rosette – IPC

Darcy Southwell – RrSG

John Horton – BC

Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Marika Konings

Amy Bivins

Danielle Andela

Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives:

 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/

Wiki page:

 <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Nathalie

-------------------------------

 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 19 August 2014:

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 19th August 2014

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Hello Holly, the operator will dial out to you in a minute

  Holly Raiche:Thanks

  Nathalie  Peregrine:James Bladel has joined the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Jim Bikoff has joine the audio bridge

  Carlton Samuels:Morning all

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Chris Pelling has also joined th call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the AC room

  Chris Pelling:afternoon all, sorry for my tardiness 

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Kristina Rosette sends her apology.

  stephanie perrin:Sorry for my tardiness

  stephanie perrin:sorry, csn you repeat the question

  Kathy:yes

  Don Blumenthal:We can hear you

  Val Sherman 2:We can hear you, Stephanie

  stephanie perrin:dont seem to have audio....will try to reconnect

  steve metalitz:we hear you stephanie

  Carlton Samuels:That question of what must be forwarded. That answer compels knowledge of what is received, meaning a triage operation to determine. So, are we back to asking P/P providers to read and/or request validation inforamtion?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the AC room

  stephanie perrin:oh sorry I will get back in the queue....

  Michele Neylon:+1 to James

  steve metalitz:@james ,what are non-legal individuals?

  Bladel:non-lawyers.

  Michele Neylon:we get those $random threats

  Michele Neylon:"it's illegal"

  Bladel:threats to engage a lawyer by a non-lawyer = "legal communciation"?

  Michele Neylon:"it's offensive"

  Michele Neylon:all sent from $random gmail addresses

  Michele Neylon:with zero proper contact details

  stephanie perrin:I believe Michele and James are making my point.  

  Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: I agree with you on the first part.  Quite apart from those relay required by the RAA, the rest is left to the  P/P provider.

  steve metalitz:+1 Kathy, the definitions do not need to be the same for relay and reveal.  

  Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: I can support different response frameworks for relay and reveal. +1

  steve metalitz:@James So a  photographer for example would need to retain a lawyer in order to try to contact the registrant of a website where her photo is displayed witout authorization? 

  Bladel:Yes.  Lower bar for relay.  Higher bar (subpoena, court order, warrant) for reveal.

  Carlton Samuels:@Volker: +1 on distilling principles. We down in the weeds here

  Bladel:@Steve:  The issue was whether to treat 3rd party (non-LEA) reports equally, or whether "legal communications" were somehow privileged.  Since we cannot clearly define the latter, I propose we treat  all reports on a level basis.

  stephanie perrin:@Steve, I dont think this is fair.  AS I said, whichever way you fall on this it is not fair....I should be able to send a good faith exposition of the facts and have it relayed, without being or hiring a lawyer. 

  steve metalitz:+1 Stephanie

  steve metalitz:@stepahnie or we could recommend that a standard form be part of implementation

  Nathalie  Peregrine:John Horton is also an apology for this call

  Val Sherman 2:+ 1 Stephanie -- form could require certain basic information.

  Carlton Samuels:@Steph on form. I'm afraid we'd be too prescriptive for a policy position!

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa also sends apologies

  Graeme Bunton:+1 James,

  stephanie perrin:@Carlton....I understand we have limitations, but some basic requirements could be mandated....more as a guideline to set expectations (as in, if you want your stuff forwarded, here is what best practice says you have to supply,...

  Kathy:+1 James

  Griffin Barnett:@James, I understand your position, but at the same time, the legitimate complainants shouldn't be constrained on account of the bad actors; also agree with Stephanie

  Bladel:@Griffin:  This is why we need to be able to filter/screen the "chaff" to ensure that the legiimate complaints get thru.

  Kathy:Quick note to the scribe that the idea of a web-based menu may not align with an RDS service. Couldyou sever the two ideas please?

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, apologies, that was me - I'd thought you'd said the concept that James had suggested was compatible but yes, will change.

  Kathy:@Mary!

  Kathy:@Mary - tx!

  Val Sherman 2:@james -- isnt that the difference between reveal and publication?

  Kathy:That's a good question - what is reveal?

  Volker Greimann:+1 James: We may want to differentiate those terms

  Bladel:I thought we had established differences between "reveal" and "disclose"?

  Alex Deacon:I thought we had also...

  Don Blumenthal:There are differences but I don't think we decided how they would play out in pracice.

  Don Blumenthal:practice

  Mary Wong:@James, you're right that this was discussed and as Don says, the WG may need to delve further into it. The word "reveal" here is used broadly, and was taken from the Whois RT Report - where the Whois RT recommended minimum standard relay and reveal processes.

  Bladel:ALso, the provider still has the right to cancel service for violation of TOS, non-payment, etc.

  Kathy:@James: I view "reveal" as sharing information to the Requestor (some info), but Publication as disclosure to the world in the Whois

  Griffin Barnett:+1 Kathy, I thought this was the terminology we used when creating our categories

  steve metalitz:Agree we should have standard terminology for the two forms of "reveal" .  Certainly provider needs to have broad discretion to terminate its service for a range of reasons (e.g., non-payment?).  

  stephanie perrin:We don't want to get down into the weeds Don, but we should not continue to violate existing law...my view of course

  Don Blumenthal:We aren't. The providers would be. :)

  stephanie perrin:We are into the world of remedies here...cancellation, as James has pointed out, is an effective remedy, publishing data, which could be dangerous or a violation of law, may be a less effective remedy.

  Volker Greimann:James +1

  steve metalitz:@James +1 on ability of provider to enforce terms of service

  Graeme Bunton:agreed with Steve and James

  Kathy:@James: would there be any terms of service that do not notify a customer prior to disclosure?

  Luc Seufer:UDRP for once

  Bladel:@Kathy - Not sure.  But that would be one way for providers to differentiate themselves.

  Bladel:Eactly, Luc.

  stephanie perrin:Suppose someone else has hacked the site   a common risk for human rights folks and dissenters....

  Carlton Samuels:Thank you all

  Kathy:@Mary: Can we add notes re: "reveal" also to Requestor - as alternative?

  Kathy:Tx Don!

  stephanie perrin:Thanks all!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140819/22b9aaaa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140819/22b9aaaa/smime-0001.p7s>