[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Missing Annex
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Apr 7 13:07:06 UTC 2015
Hi Steve and All,
I think we need to add a missing Annex - one to cover the process that
should take place when a Requester or the Trademark/Copyright Owner to
which it is reporting disclose the Revealed Data in way that is not
consistent with the limitations agreed to in the disclosure -- e.g.,
publishes the data or passes it on to other third parties (who
presumably misuse it- which is how the Provider might learn of the
misuse). This action could, of course, compromise the safety and
security of individuals and organizations.
I volunteer to work with others to write such an Annex by next week...
Best,
Kathy
:
>
> Just a brief note that could facilitate our discussion tomorrow with
> regard to the “Annex” to the draft disclosure framework. (Thanks Mary
> for recirculating this text.)
>
> As the title spells out, the document sets forth “Some options for
> resolving disputes arising from alleged false statements leading to
> improper disclosures*.” *The Annex is not intended to address any
> appeal mechanism regarding a disclosure request, but only the
> consequences of a request wrongfully granted because based on false
> pretenses.
>
> In this document, “some” options basically boils down to two options.
> Under the first option, a requestor would agree to submit such
> disputes to an arbitrator. (The other party to the dispute, the
> privacy/proxy service provider, would presumably agree to this method
> as well, as part of its accreditation process.) The document provides
> some more detail about the arbitration process, though certainly much
> more work would need to be done to implement it.
>
> Under the second option, the requestor would agree, for purposes of
> such wrongful disclosure disputes, to submit to the jurisdiction of
> the courts in the territory where the service provider is located.
>
> Our discussions over the past few weeks may have made the last
> paragraph of the Annex document less relevant. It is based on the
> assumption that, under either option, not all requestors would
> necessarily be required to agree. As specified in section I.b.iv of
> the overall document, a service provider could, if it chose, institute
> a “trusted requestor” program to facilitate processing of requests
> from reliable sources. The last paragraph of the Annex says that a
> service provider could, if it chose, make such an agreement a
> condition of entry into a “trusted requestor” program, if it had one.
> This last paragraph may be irrelevant if the group decides that _some_
> dispute resolution process should be available _whenever_ the service
> provider believes it has wrongfully disclosed based on false
> pretenses. But ultimately the group still needs to decide whether
> there will be such a mandatory dispute resolution process, and if so,
> which process it will be (arbitration, or litigation in the service
> provider’s home court).
>
> Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
> *Sent:* Monday, April 06, 2015 10:05 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on 7
> April 2014
>
> Dear WG members,
>
> The proposed agenda for the next WG call on 7 April 2014 is as follows:
>
> 1. Roll call/updates to SOI
> 2. Continue deliberations on Category F, specifically: (a)
> attestation/signatory for Requests; (b) Section III.C(5); (c)
> non-use of high-volume automated processes; and (d) the Annex.
> 3. Next steps/next meeting
>
> Please also find attached an updated version of the draft disclosure
> framework for agenda item #2. This version accepts all the changes up
> to last week (excluding prior suggested changes to the type of
> information required on a Requestor), and adds the recent language
> suggested by Val on attestation, Todd and Volker on III.C(5) (in
> square brackets as two alternate versions), and a final
> paragraph/sentence on the automation issue, based on language
> previously suggested by Todd and a suggestion by James to look at the
> specific language in the 2013 RAA applicable to this type of activity.
>
> The draft Annex 1 is also attached – it preserves the original text
> that was presented to the WG several weeks ago, since the WG chairs
> thought it would be easier to review that way in order to ensure that
> everyone is clear about the options being offered.
>
> Thanks and 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 <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150407/8fe0b868/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list