[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 13:10:18 UTC 2015
Steve,
I agree and thanks. But the longstanding language that we have been
working on for weeks is now bracketed and optional -- it would be good
to unbracket it and make clear what is the original language (below) and
what is the new language.
Tx! Kathy
Original, longstanding language of III.C...
*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].
:
> I believe c 2 and 3 are already on today's agenda for discussion.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From: *Kathy Kleiman [kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>]
> *Sent: *Tuesday, April 21, 2015 05:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
> *To: *gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions
> for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 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/e5108e3a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list