[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach

Wed Oct 22 18:02:04 UTC 2014

Just to clarify:  I¹m fine with including any stakeholder that wants to
contribute, including LEA. I am simply opposed to creating special
provisions for dealing with (or conversely, limiting) LEA requests, aside
from maintaining a point of contact and a duty to investigate.  Because,
at the end of the day, LEA actions will be governed by local law and ICANN
policies/accreditation requirements will be set aside.

Thanks‹

J.

On 10/22/14, 12:56 , "Chris Pelling" <chris at netearthone.com> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>I agree with your point that "can we as a WG decide that input or
>involvement of LE (or any stakeholder group for that matter) should not
>occur?" --  I agree with can we as a "can we the WG decide" in that its
>up to the group.
>
>However, the point regarding "We seem to have jumped to the conclusion
>that LE will parachute in with a list of demands/asks." -- this is NOT an
>assumption, it's FACT, this has already happened before, you really do
>not need to look too far - just look at the RAA.
>
>LE will come in, state that they want to see X, Y and Z, they'll provide
>nothing to back up the "wants" with justification and statistics and then
>keep this WG active in discussion / disagreement for years to come.
>
>I agree with Volker, James and Luc.
>
>Kind regards,.
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alex Deacon" <Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>
>To: lseufer at dclgroup.eu
>Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 October, 2014 6:17:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>
>Hold on. This is a PDP on privacy/proxy services, not whois accuracy.
>Discussion and debates around the effectiveness of whois accuracy
>recommendations is clearly not in scope of this WG.
>
>Also, given the bottom up multistakeholder nature of ICANN can we as a WG
>decide that input or involvement of LE (or any stakeholder group for that
>matter) should not occur?  We seem to have jumped to the conclusion that
>LE will parachute in with a list of demands/asks.  While I understand why
>some would make this assumption I suggest its best to get their input on
>our current set of preliminary conclusions sooner rather than later.
>
>Alex
>
>
>
>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Luc SEUFER <lseufer at dclgroup.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> I know the charter of this working group has been drafted, approved etc.
>> 
>> But if we can just take a step back and remember that this
>>accreditation program directly stems from a recommendation made by LEAs
>>within the scope of the 2013 RAA negotiations.
>> 
>> 
>>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/raa-law-enforcement-recommend
>>ations-01mar12-en.pdf
>> 
>> I trust asking them about the effectiveness of the other already
>>implemented recommandations is in the remit of this WG. Developing
>>policies without looking at their consequences doesn¹t seem wise to me.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Luc
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 Oct 2014, at 16:56, Don Blumenthal
>><dblumenthal at pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> James,.
>> 
>> Laws and jurisdiction have nothing to do with it. LE simply may have
>>different viewpoints on issues from what we have heard.
>> 
>> Example: It was my impression on the last call (next to last?) that the
>>group was tending toward ³requestors must ask for relay before
>>requesting reveal.² From experience, I don¹t think that will work so
>>well when the requestor is, for example, LE or a private anti-abuse
>>group.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:44 AM
>> To: Don Blumenthal;
>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>> 
>> Don:
>> 
>> Even if they raise new issues or rationalesŠ.then what?  Sorry to be so
>>blunt, but nothing we include as consensus policy or an accreditation
>>requirement will trump the laws applicable to the P/P service.  And it
>>only takes us down the twisty path of jurisdictionsŠ.
>> 
>> Just not sure if there is any ultimate value of this effort.
>> 
>> Thanks‹
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>> 
>> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>>
>> Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 9:38
>> To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>,
>>PPSAI WG 
>><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>> 
>> James,
>> 
>> I am not sure what we will gain from LE or DPA sessions. However, the
>>idea has floated a few times since we started work, and it was expressed
>>again during the last call. I don¹t see either session as defining new
>>privileges or protections, unless they raise issues or add rationales
>>that we have not considered.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:30 AM
>> To: Metalitz, Steven; Don Blumenthal; Volker Greimann;
>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>> 
>> I am now convinced that the entire LEA issue is a morass w.r.t this PDP.
>> 
>> In a nutshell, the 2013 RAA requires Registrars to maintain a
>>responsive (24/7) point of contact with their local law enforcement, and
>>to investigate complaints of illegal activities, and take the
>>appropriate action.  It goes without saying that Registrars will also
>>cooperate with court orders, warrants, etc.
>> 
>> Trying to use this PDP to construct additional LEA privileges (or
>>define additional protections for P/P customers) is, IMO, out of scope
>>and meaningless anyway.  Recommend we model any P/P obligations after
>>those in the RAA and move on.  I question what will be gained from LEA
>>outreach.
>> 
>> Thanks‹
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 9:15
>> To: 'Don Blumenthal' <dblumenthal at pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>>,
>>Volker Greimann 
>><vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, PPSAI WG
>><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>> 
>> While I understand that some WG members are eager to have a
>>conversation with law enforcement about the 2013 RAA, I question whether
>>that is in scope for our working group.
>> 
>> 
>>From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces
>>@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>Don Blumenthal
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:11 AM
>> To: Volker Greimann;
>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>> 
>> Volker,
>> 
>> I understand the concern. It¹s been raised on calls and in other places
>>for good reason. We will ask for stats as part of what we would like to
>>hear from LE.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces
>>@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>Volker Greimann
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:35 AM
>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach
>> 
>> Hi Don,
>> 
>> one thing I would like to ask is that before we invite Law Enforcement
>>to present their list of asks (because that is what it will turn out to
>>be once they are here), we should request that they also present some
>>evidence of how better contactability since the changes in the RAA has
>>improved their ability to catch the bad guys.
>> LEAs are always good at asking for more, but not as good at justifying
>>their requests with concrete facts.
>> 
>> Volker
>> Am 21.10.2014 18:53, schrieb Don Blumenthal:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> The chairs group met this morning while sparing the rest of you. We
>>will send more about we talked about and thoughts about how we¹ll move
>>from here later in the week after some drafting.
>> 
>> In the meantime, some WG members have suggested SME style briefings
>>from the law enforcement community and data protection authorities, and
>>it¹s time to schedule them. The idea is for individuals or groups to
>>look at what we have produced and comment based on their perspectives.
>>General discussions of p/p won¹t be neary has helpful.
>> 
>> We have a good set of contacts in LE because it has a presence at ICANN
>>and Dick Leaming from Interpol told me a few times in LA that he will
>>join. Suggestions still are welcome for because the ICANN regulars are
>>self-selected, and partly on the basis of who can afford to come. That¹s
>>not necessarily the best way to get a cross section of the community.
>> 
>> On the other hand, we are starting almost from zero on DPA. I have a
>>friend and long ago FTC colleague who works on privacy and security
>>matters at the OECD as a possible starting point but we need more
>>thoughts.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> 
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> 
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
>>for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
>>you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender
>>immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the
>>message or disclose its contents to anyone.
>> 
>> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really
>>need to.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg