[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Kiran,
Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us 
greatly.  By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual 
knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, b) 
by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement and c) 
by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the trademark 
or copyright owner to the allegations being made.

I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal 
Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester or 
by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro se").

Best,
Kathy
:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for forwarding with enough time to review before the call!
>
> We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I am not a fan of the changes in Section II.  I'm concerned about the level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information to the Service Provider.  In very large companies, the trademark owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in the enforcement activity.  It should be enough to demonstrate agency, as the previous language did.
>
> Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the group before the call.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kiran
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil
> Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415.222.8318 (t)
> 415.419.9138 (m)
> www.markmonitor.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM
> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
>
> Hi All,
> Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached.  This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research:
>
> 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section)
>
> All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including
> a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information?
>
> Best and have a good rest of weekend,
> Kathy