[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015
Nathalie Peregrine
nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
Tue Apr 21 14:02:15 UTC 2015
Thanks Kiran, apology noted.
Kind regards
Nathalie
On 4/21/15, 3:58 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>I will have to miss today's call. Please accept my apologies.
>
>I will catch up with the recording and transcript.
>
>Kiran Malancharuvil
>Internet Policy Counselor
>MarkMonitor
>415-419-9138 (m)
>
>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
>On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Mary Wong
><mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>Hi Kathy and everyone,
>
>For clarity and in accordance with the usual practice, both options the
>previous and the new language have been square bracketed, to indicate
>that they are currently options under discussion by the WG (this is also
>why square brackets around prior bracketed language that did not or that
>no longer indicate more than one option were removed). The options in
>III.C(2) & (3) garnered some support as well as opposition, which is why
>both options were included; in contrast, other suggestions for language
>elsewhere that did not gain any ³traction² within the WG were not added
>(again, as per usual practice). As Steve noted, these options remain open
>for discussion and are specifically highlighted as being on the agenda
>for the call today.
>
>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>
>
>
>
>From: Kathy Kleiman
><kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 09:10
>To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>,
>"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>, Graeme
>Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com<mailto:gbunton at tucows.com>>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG
>call on Tuesday 21 April 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 Requestor¹s trademark or
>copyright request is a pretext for obtaining the Customer¹s contact
>details for the purpose of contravening the Customer¹s human rights
>[facts and circumstances] [information, facts and/or circumstances]
>showing that the Requestor¹s trademark or copyright complaint is a
>pretextual means of obtaining the Customer¹s contact details [solely]
>[mainly] for the purpose of contravening the Customer¹s [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<http://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<mailto: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 Requestor¹s trademark or
>copyright request is a pretext for obtaining the Customer¹s contact
>details for the purpose of contravening the Customer¹s human rights[facts
>and circumstances] [information, facts and/or circumstances] showingthat
>the Requestor¹s trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of
>obtaining the Customer¹s contact details [solely] [mainly]for the purpose
>of contravening the Customer¹s [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 ³square brackets² 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 Steve¹s
>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 provider¹s designated point of
>contact: - the person or team must be ³capable and authorized² (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-e
>n> (³taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond²) had
>been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has been
>superseded by the WG¹s 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-20
>13-09-17-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 provider¹s 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:
>³As 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.²² (pages 53-54)
>
>Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of the
>WG¹s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and publish
>in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a customer¹s
>contact details will be Published due to the customer¹s 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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list