[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Edits to Initial Report on the P/P Services Accreditation Issues

Tue Jan 6 18:36:12 UTC 2015

I too agree with John's comment and support it being removed or rewritten
for a more balanced perspective.

-Susan
~~~~~

*Susan Prosser*VP, Partner & Industry Relations
DomainTools, LLC

T: (206) 838-9060
E: *susan at domaintools.com <http://susan@domaintools.com/> *
www.domaintools.com

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Baney, Libby <libby.baney at faegrebd.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Libby
>
> ________________________________________
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil [
> Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:10 AM
> To: Mary Wong
> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org; Kathryn Kleiman
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Edits to Initial Report on the P/P
> Services        Accreditation Issues
>
> Dear All:
>
> I am sick with the flu and can't join today's call, but would like to echo
> John's concern about Kathy's proposed language in #4 below. Let's try and
> strike a balance with measured language that isn't fear-mongering.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kiran
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil
> Internet Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415-419-9138 (m)
>
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:
> mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm forwarding the suggestions below on behalf of Kathy, who's having some
> problems with her email system. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on our
> discussions, Kathy!
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> All,
> I would like to submit the following edits to the Executive Summary:
>
> 1.       1.3.1 (19): a customer should be able to choose his/her/its new
> P/P provider in circumstances where the de-accreditation is known and takes
> place over time.
>
> 2.       1.3.2 On Escalation of Relay Requests "What should be the minimum
> mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of
> persistent delivery failure **[add] known to the P/P provider** of an
> electronic communication.
>
> 3.       1.3.2 Following the section on "In addition, the WG is
> considering the following language for request by intellectual property
> owners or their representatives..." **[add] The WG is also trying to
> determine whether the Data Protection laws of countries and other
> protections (e.g., Free Speech/Freedom of Expression) limit the disclosure
> of such information without a court order. There is also a call in the WG
> for an express time in which the Customer may challenge a disclosure
> request and provide some explanation to the Proxy/Privacy Provider that
> actual intent of the request is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, or
> otherwise a misuse or abuse of the "reveal" process. An example discussed
> in the WG includes the response by a Customer to a P/P Provider's notice of
> disclosure of a physical address on trademark or copyright grounds where
> the Customer is actually the "senior" (prior) trademark user or "original"
> copyright owner of the material (thus making the request for disclosure of
> personal/identifiable data from the P/P Provider illegitimate). It was also
> widely agreed that the Customer should have the opportunity and right to
> seek a court order barring disclosure and/or publication if his/her/its
> legal system allows such challenges.
>
> 4.       1.3.3 After second paragraph, I would like to add a third
> paragraph before the sentence: "The community is invited to provide input..."
> and include==> Many members of the WG expressed concern that many
> noncommercial organizations engage in small financial transactions closely
> related to their mission, mandate and mission, including the sale of signs,
> bumper stickers and brochures, and that the transactional rule suggestion
> would inadvertently and arbitrarily force a P/P Provider to reveal the
> location data for minority groups, including religious, political, ethnical
> and sexual orientation, potentially resulting in chilling and even more
> horrific consequences.
>
> I think the background on all sides will help commenters...
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
> <image001.png>
> Kathy Kleiman
> Internet Counsel
> 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209
> Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846
> * kleiman at fhhlaw.com<mailto:kleiman at fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com<
> http://www.fhhlaw.com/> |www.commlawblog.com<http://www.commlawblog.com/>
>
> <image001.png>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150106/b34ecce5/attachment-0001.html>