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

Tue Mar 24 00:16:31 UTC 2015

I think the point of the guidelines is that it is up to the WG as a whole, not an individual member acting a few hours before a scheduled meeting, to invite non-members to a meeting to provide input.

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:28 PM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks!

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26
To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

Hi Stephanie and everyone,

Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision also permits a WG to seek input from "self formed groups and/or individuals" on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more efficacious and appropriate for its purpose.

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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc

THanks Mary, very helpful.  Since there is no cost, my question would be, why not?
cheers Stephanie
On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote:

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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

-----Original Message-----

From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com><mailto:gbunton at tucows.com>

Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44

To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "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>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com><mailto: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<http://www.markmonitor.com>

-----Original Message-----

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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/20150324/5030e3d7/attachment-0001.html>