[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Apr 21 12:59:07 UTC 2015
Dear All,
Some new language was introduced after the meeting last week. Despite
objections from me, James Gannon and James Bladel, and a promise from
Steve that it would be discussed this week for consideration, it has
been included -- and longstanding language that we have agreed to for
weeks (months?) has become bracketed and "optional." I don't think that
is the right way to handle this process so late in the day. I strongly
request that we return to the original language (included below from
Mary's 4/13 circulated just before the last meeting) and if people want
to change III.C.2 and 3 (completely rewrite, really), they should argue
why.
From Mary's Reveal text circulated 4/13 just before our last
meeting (with note that my objection is solely to the sudden complete
change of III.C.2 and 3 (and not to the evolving dialogue and wording of
III.C.5):
*[III] 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)*the Service Provider has already published Customer contact
details in Whois as the result of termination of privacy and proxy
service;
*(2)*the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided
[adequate] reasons against disclosure, including without
limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or
copyrighted content in question;
*(3)*the Provider has found [adequate] reasons against disclosure,
*(4)*the Customer has surrendered its domain name registration in
lieu of disclosure, if the Service Provider offers its Customers
this option.
*(5)*that the Customer has provided, or the Provider has found,
specific evidence demonstrating that the Requestor’s trademark or
copyright request is a pretext for obtaining the Customer’s
contact details for the purpose of contravening the Customer’s
human rights[facts and circumstances] [information, facts and/or
circumstances] showing that the Requestor’s trademark or copyright
complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer’s
contact details [solely] [mainly] for the purpose of contravening
the Customer’s [human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)]
[privacy rights].
Best,
Kathy
:
> Dear WG members,
>
> The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as
> follows; please also note the additional information/suggestions that
> follow.
>
> 1. Roll call/updates to SOI
> 2. Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework
> intended for public comment – Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached)
> 3. Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report
> – see below
> 4. Next steps/next meeting – including circulation of final draft
> Initial Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and
> publication date for public comment
>
> The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was
> circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes:
> (1) the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of
> authorization (as noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April
> document); and (2) for clarity, the retention of “square brackets”
> only with reference to language that still reflects two or more
> options (since the entire document will be open for public comment in
> any case).
>
> For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions
> from the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29
> January 2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive
> discussion at the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the
> suggested answers below for discussion/agreement/other comments.
> Graeme and Steve’s suggestions are highlighted in *blue*, with
> references to the context for these remaining questions (as page
> numbers from the draft Report) following in bold and underlined. The
> actual phrasing of each question can be found in _*Section 1.3.2 of
> the Executive Summary*_ of the draft Report as well.
>
>
> _Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P
> Providers_:
>
> * The standard for maintaining a P/P provider’s designated point of
> contact: - *the person or team must be “capable and authorized”*
> (per the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the IRTP
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en>) (see
> _*pages 50-51*_ of the draft Initial Report)
> * The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an
> abuse report is made to the designated point of contact – *while
> the requirement under Section 3.18.1 of the 2013 RAA
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>
> (“taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond”)
> had been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has
> been superseded by the WG’s specific recommendations on Relay and
> Disclosure (_pages 51-52_) *
> * To ensure provider contactability – *P/P providers should be
> required to publish contact information on their website, modelled
> after Section 2.3 of the interim Specification on Privacy and
> Proxy Registrations
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy> in
> the 2013 RAA (_pages 51-52_)*
>
> __
>
> _On Escalation of Relay Requests_:
>
> * On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests
> in the event of persistent delivery failure of electronic
> communications – retain current language in draft Initial Report
> (including bracketed options) for public comment.
>
> The current draft language reads as follows:
>
> /"While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider’s
> obligation to act in the event it becomes aware of a
> persistent delivery failure, the WG has yet to agree on
> obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by a
> requestor. The following is the current language under
> consideration by the WG, with the options included in square
> brackets:/
>
> /“As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned
> requirements concerning a persistent delivery failure of an
> electronic communication have been met, the provider [should]
> [must] upon request forward a further form of notice to its
> customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the most
> appropriate means of forwarding such a request [and to charge a
> reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee
> is to be borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider
> shall have the right to impose reasonable limits on the number of
> such requests made by the same requestor.”” /*(_pages 53-54_)*
>
>
> Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of
> the WG’s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and
> publish in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a
> customer’s contact details will be Published due to the customer’s
> breach of one or more of the Terms of Service. While this is not a
> Charter-based question, WG members are encouraged – when they come to
> review the final draft Initial Report – to consider this question and
> provide additional feedback if necessary.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150421/786c3de8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list