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

Mon Mar 23 23:11:35 UTC 2015

Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section
4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following
language: 

"If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings
occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should
identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including
subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If
additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the
[Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout
its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or
individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters
that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the
ICANN community."

We hope this is helpful.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com>
Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

>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
>>>
>>
>
>-- 
>_________________________
>Graeme Bunton
>Manager, Management Information Systems
>Manager, Public Policy
>Tucows Inc.
>PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150323/2034d696/smime.p7s>