[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda for WG meeting and updated Work Plan (Re: Updated document re disclosure standards)
Don M. Blumenthal
dmb at donblumenthal.com
Mon Mar 2 23:28:48 UTC 2015
Thanks, Mary. I apologize for the late thoughts on Friday's note but
that's my routine these days. :(
This outline and work plan look good to me (noting the possibility of
another facilitated session). I'm sorry that we are pushing the timeline
back this much but the only way to avoid it is to ask for the kind of
email discussions that you suggested on Friday. I'm skeptical that that
can work. The WG has engaged in some excellent conversations when
members pursued issues that grabbed their attention, but general "talk
amongst yourselves" requests haven't been productive. Of course, we can
shorten the schedule if we move more quickly than planned.
I will try to be on the call.
Best,
Don
On 3/2/2015 11:14 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Following from Steve’s email, here is the proposed agenda for the WG
> call on Tuesday 3 March; please also note the attached revised Work
> Plan for this WG, which takes into account recent discussions and
> updates our timeline for publication of our Initial Report and
> delivery of a Final Report to the GNSO Council:
>
> 1. Roll call/updates to SOI
> 2. Finalize discussion on draft document on discussion standards
> 3. Discuss remaining questions concerning Category F (Reveal) - see below
> 4. Discuss proposed WG face-to-face facilitated meeting at ICANN53
> 5. Next steps/next meeting
>
> To assist with the WG’s discussion of agenda item #3, here are the
> outstanding questions for Category F, as phrased in the draft Initial
> Report under discussion (they can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the
> Executive Summary):
>
> * Should there be uniform minimum standards for accredited P/P
> providers to apply in determining when to Disclose or Publish, or
> in verifying a requestor’s identity?
> * Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with
> express requests from LEA in the provider’s jurisdiction not to
> notify a customer? Should there be mandatory Publication for
> certain types of activity e.g. malware/viruses or violation of
> terms of service relating to illegal activity? What (if any)
> should the remedies be for unwarranted Publication?
> * Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with
> express requests for Disclosure for the purpose of sending cease
> and desist letters or notices of formal legal proceedings against
> the customer? Should customer notification in such cases be mandatory?
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 09:54
> To: "'PPSAI (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>>
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Updated document re disclosure standards
>
> PPSAI WG members,
>
>
>
> Attached please find an updated version of the document Graeme and
> I circulated prior to last week’s meeting. This updated version
> includes three or four wording tweaks, intended to reflect the
> discussion on last week’s call. Looking forward to further
> discussion on tomorrow’s call.
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:57
> *To: *"'PPSAI (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>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Category F -- updated status
> report and text for discussion
>
>
>
> PPSAI WG members,
>
>
>
> This follows up on our note of Feb. 3 providing a status
> report on subgroup discussions among some IP interests and
> p/p service providers regarding p/p disclosure standards. To
> reiterate, the group’s work is not meant to obviate or
> displace the work of the larger PPSAI WG on this issue –
> rather, it is meant to constructively contribute to the
> discussion by producing one proposal on this issue for the
> larger group’s consideration.
>
>
>
> In light of further consideration and of the need to move
> forward the WG discussion on Category F, we present the
> attached document that we hope will help provide a framework
> for discussion of the disclosure issue in the WG. We
> emphasize that this is not a proposal from IPC, the Registrar
> Stakeholder Group, or any subset of either, and that we fully
> anticipate the text to be modified and improved through
> further discussion at the WG level. (We also acknowledge that
> the WG may find the proposal wholly unsatisfactory but hope
> that it will at least help advance debate.)
>
>
>
> The attached is put forward as a starting point, to use
> intellectual property infringement complaints as one
> illustrative example of minimum disclosure standards, in a
> framework that addresses (1) a service provider process for
> intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would
> have to meet in order to trigger service provider action; and
> (3) principles governing service provider action in response
> to a conforming request.
>
>
>
> We look forward to the discussion of this document among WG
> members.
>
>
>
> Graeme Bunton
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
> *From:*Metalitz, Steven
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:57 PM
> *To:* PPSAI (gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>)
> *Subject:* Category F -- status report
>
>
>
> Dear WG colleagues,
>
>
>
> As you know, several PPSAI Working Group members, including
> representatives of the IPC and privacy and proxy service
> providers, have endeavored to develop a collaborative proposal
> on the minimum standards for disclosure (Category F). The
> group’s work is not meant to obviate or displace the work of
> the larger group on this issue – rather, it is meant to
> constructively contribute to the discussion by producing one
> proposal on this issue for the larger group’s consideration.
> This is an update on this sub-group’s progress.
>
>
>
> But first, a little background: At the face-to-face meeting of
> the PPSAI Working Group in Los Angeles on October 10, 2014,
> one important topic was minimum standards for disclosure of
> contact information of customers of privacy/proxy services who
> may or may not be using their private domain name
> registrations to carry out infringing or other abusive
> activities.
>
>
>
> Prior to the face-to-face meeting, IPC participants in the
> Working Group circulated a proposal on this topic. A
> responsive redline was circulated to the WG by Volker Greimann.
>
>
>
> Following extensive discussion of these proposals and of the
> topic in general at the face-to-face meeting, a sub-group of
> WG participants have continued this discussion. The sub-group
> includes participants from the IPC and privacy/proxy service
> providers. Meeting by teleconference and working over e-mail,
> the sub-group has sought to develop a text that could be
> jointly presented to the PPSAI Working Group as a framework
> for further discussion on the issue of standards for disclosure.
>
>
>
> Some progress has been made, and the sub-group is continuing
> its efforts with the goal of producing a document for
> presentation to the PPSAI Working Group as soon after the
> Singapore ICANN meeting as feasible. If such a document is
> completed, it is hoped that it would be a constructive
> contribution to eventual WG approval of a set of
> recommendations on “Category F” for inclusion in the Draft
> Report of the WG.
>
>
>
> Unlike the documents discussed by the full WG last October,
> the framework under discussion does not purport to establish a
> single general policy for when disclosure of contact
> information in cases of alleged abusive activities would be
> available. Instead, it seeks to focus more narrowly on
> intellectual property infringement complaints as one
> illustrative example of minimum disclosure standards. The
> framework would describe (1) a service provider process for
> intake of requests; (2) general templates that requests would
> have to meet in order to trigger service provider action; and
> (3) principles governing service provider action in response
> to a conforming request. While considerable progress has been
> made in the first two areas, a number of critical issues
> remain to be resolved in the third area, and discussion has
> not been concluded on any of the areas.
>
>
>
> The expressed common goal of the discussion group participants
> is a framework that would give requestors a higher degree of
> certainty and predictability as to if, when and how they could
> obtain what level of disclosure; that would preserve for
> service providers a sufficient degree of flexibility and
> discretion in acting upon requests for disclosure; and that
> would include reasonable safeguards and procedures to protect
> the legitimate interests of customers of accredited
> proxy/privacy service providers. Of course, balancing these
> interests is the difficult task before our working group. As
> stated, participants in the discussion group hope to be able
> to make a constructive contribution to the WG’s efforts to do
> so.
>
>
>
> Graeme Bunton
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150302/ddf0c429/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list