[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach

Wed Oct 22 18:12:12 UTC 2014

Dear all,

Just FYI that the GNSO Working Group Guidelines envisages a WG possibly
seeking input from subject matter experts, whether individuals or
entities, as warranted by the particular circumstances and deliberations
of each WG. For instance, Section 4.4, titled “Briefings and Subject
Matter Experts”, provides that -

"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings
occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should
identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization, i.e. GNSO
Council] including subject matter(s), type(s)of expertise, objectives, and
costs … Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout its deliberations,
decide to seek input from self-formed groups and/or individuals with the
aim of further informing WG members about matters that fall within the
remit of the WG and which are of interest to the ICANN community."

I believe this is what Don had in mind, considering that at this stage in
our deliberations there is the possibility that certain types of requests
- such as those from LEA, consumer protection agencies, anti-abuse groups
etc. - might be distinguishable (and hence possibly meriting different
standards/treatment) than requests from other third parties.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

-----Original Message-----
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 2:02 PM
To: Chris Pelling <chris at netearthone.com>, Alex Deacon
<Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>
Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach

>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-recommen
>>>d
>>>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-bounce
>>>s
>>>@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-bounce
>>>s
>>>@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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20141022/31490642/smime-0001.p7s>