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

Tue Mar 24 02:46:13 UTC 2015

I am really confused.  When Richard Leaning joined the group as a law 
enforcement representative, we asked for a representative of the data 
protection community, just for balance.  I provided suggested names.   
We never heard back....delighted to have Dick with us now as a group 
member, but is it open to me to invite a data protection authority to 
join the group?  There are a great many attorneys here on the requestor 
side of this discussion, how many represent clients on the other side?  
If Mr Berryhill, (who I do not know but whose Interventions I have 
encountered in my research) chose to join the group would he be accepted?

These are just my naive questions.  Thanks.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-03-23 22:37, Mary Wong wrote:
> Hi Kathy and everyone,
>
> While all WG calls are recorded and transcribed, calls are generally understood to be meetings and discussions among WG members unless, as noted, experts and other contributors are invited to participate live and in real time. WG participants, to the extent they represent SG/C/SO/ACs and other groups, are therefore expected to communicate, update and represent views and positions to and from those groups, including WG decisions and requests. As you know, input is also sought from the rest of the community on a periodic basis.
>
> In this case, the WG chairs have indicated that it may be better for the WG as a whole, with sufficient notice, to determine whether and when John (and for that matter any other non-WG member) should be asked to join a call and/or provide input. This is borne out by the WG Guidelines so perhaps can be a question for the WG to take up as part of the discussion on next steps on the call in about 12 hours' time.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 20:49, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely, I think it is very important to have attorneys with experience in all aspects of this work.  John Berryhill is available to join us tomorrow, and if we are going to talking about Section II, Request Templates, I strongly recommend that we allow him to participate. Also, is there any restrictions on not being able to join a WG call?
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>> :
>>> While I certainly welcome Johns participation as a working group member, I want to be sure that we won't be wasting time discussing anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be representative of the situation at hand. As I (and others) have said on multiple calls, let's not get distracted with case-by-case examples which (may) represent minority situations.
>>>
>>> Also, if we invite in a subject mater expert to give his examples, are we then allowed to bring in our examples and have them given the same consideration and weight? I can see this devolving into a "this happened to me" "this happened to me" mess.
>>>
>>> K
>>>
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg