[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Apr 16 12:31:46 UTC 2015
All,
I think there are a lot of major language shifts taking place a) after
our calls and b) in hopes of bringing final language into the Report
that is being finalized today. Unfortunately, I think Val's language for
III.C.2 and especially III.C.3 has enormous consequences and cast a
major change to language that has remained essentially unchanged in our
many weeks of discussion. The original language was essentially brought
to the WG, accepted by the WG and ready to be put out for comment by the
WG -- with brackets (as in so many other parts of the report) -- but all
the time with the language of the committee that drafted it.
Now we are being asked to review such changes a) under a fast deadline
and b) with no in-person comment. I have to object - and call for the
original language to stay. If we want to meet next week to talk about
these new proposed changes, let's do that. But we have no precedent of
accepting major changes without exploring them in person and on the
calls -- as we have explored every other significant change.
Best,
Kathy
:
>
> Thanks Kathy. On III(C)(2) and (3): I don’t think we ever had
> agreement on the language. “Adequate” was still bracketed precisely
> b/c we hadn’t agreed on that standard (I think the initial language
> was “compelling”, and I think it had changed a couple times in between).
>
> In the spirit of trying to address some of our loose ends and leave as
> little language bracketed as possible, I think Val’s proposal for
> III(C)(2) and (3) does a good job of finding a “third way” between the
> “compelling” camp and the “adequate” camp. Rather than pick b/w those
> two standards, it just says: let’s use the mirror of what the
> Requestor has to allege under II(A)(6)(a), II(B)(7)(A), and
> II(C)(6)(A). As a way of bridging the current gap that we’ve got,
> that seems reasonable to me: if the language is good for the
> Requestor, why wouldn’t it be good going the other way? Or, to put it
> another way: why would that language “seem a little ambiguous and hard
> to prove” going one way but not the other?
>
> I agree with you that we don’t want a lot of additional work and
> discussion at this point. I guess where I disagree with you is on
> which of the two options that is on the table – 1) fighting it out b/w
> “compelling” and “adequate” or 2) incorporating language that we’ve
> agreed to elsewhere – is more likely to lead to additional work and
> discussion.
>
> TW.
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:02 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
>
> Hi Val,
> Thank you for new language as we work to close the report for
> publication. May I ask a few questions?
>
> In III.B.2 - the change from [existing] (2) state to Requestor in
> writing or by electronic communication its reasons for refusing to
> disclose to
> [new/proposed] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic
> communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose --
>
> seems to raise the bar on the response of the Provider to the
> Requestor -- and there may be many Requests! So let me as, what are
> you thinking of in terms of the "specific reasons" that a Provider
> might have to give? How extensive or detailed would you like their
> answers to be?
>
>
> Re: III.C.2 and 3 I think the existing language is quite good -- with
> apologies, because I know the genuine good will in which the changes
> are offered, bringing in a Customer's "belief" and the Providers
> "belief" seems a little ambiguous and hard to prove.
>
> I look forward to looking at III.B.2 with you... but re: III.B.3, I
> think we had pretty good agreement on the existing language and these
> new proposals may result is a lot of additional work and discussion.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> 1.
>
> On 4/14/2015 4:12 PM, Sherman, Valeriya wrote:
>
> PPSAI Team:
>
> Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report,
> we’d like to propose the following, hopefully non-contentious
> suggestions to III.B, C, and E.
>
> We look forward to your thoughts.
>
> B. …
>
> (1)…
>
> (2)state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication
> its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose.
>
> (3)…
>
> C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons
> consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but
> not limited to any of the following:
>
> (1)…
>
> (2)the Customer has objectsed to the disclosure and has providesd
> [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure, including
> without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the
> trademark or copyrighted content in question for believing (i)
> that it is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual
> property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of the claimed
> intellectual property is defensible;
>
> (Note: This language tracks the Requestor’s standards warranting
> disclosure, and is the opposite side of the same coin.)
>
> (3)the Provider has found provides [adequate sufficient] reasons
> against disclosure for believing (i) that the Customer is not
> infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights,
> and/or (ii) that the Customer’s use of the claimed intellectual
> property is defensible;
>
> (4)…
>
> (5)…
>
> …
>
> E.If refusal to disclose is based on objection to disclosure by
> the Customer, Requestor be informed of the reasons for objection.
> (Could be consolidated with III B (2)).
>
> *Valeriya Sherman
> <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> |**Attorney
> at Law***
>
> 202-973-2611 /phone/
> 202-263-4326 /fax/
> /www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com>//
> /vsherman at sgrlaw.com <mailto:vsherman at sgrlaw.com>//
>
> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
> Suite 400
> Washington, D.C. 20007
>
> /Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal
> courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.//
> /She is not admitted in the District of Columbia.//
>
>
>
> *<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Confidentiality Notice
> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is
> intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is
> addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally
> exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you
> are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate
> this message or any part of it. If you have received this message
> in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and
> delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150416/48f86760/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150416/48f86760/attachment-0001.jpe>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list