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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I would certainly vote for inviting him, as, having no direct experience 
with these cases as most of the rest of you do, I would welcome the 
opportunity to understand real live situations.
STephanie Perrin

On 2015-03-23 18:44, Graeme Bunton wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have 
> some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area.
> However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us.
>
> I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of 
> where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once 
> there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. 
>> He can speak from very direct experience to the difference between 
>> working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the 
>> trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be 
>> valuable insight - and inform our important discussion!
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>>
>> :
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>