[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 1500 UTC

Tue Mar 24 17:16:13 UTC 2015

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-24mar15-en.mp3

On page:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

 Attendees:

Frank Michlick - Individual

Justin Macy - BC

Val Sherman - IPC

Griffin Barnett - IPC

Kathy Kleiman - NCSG

Darcy Southwell - RrSG

Todd Williams - IPC

Steve Metalitz - IPC

Graeme Bunton - RrSG

Jim Bikoff - IPC

Holly Raiche - ALAC

Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC

Volker Greimann - RrSG

Alex Deacon -IPC
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Stephanie Perrin - NCSG

Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG

Susan Kawaguchi - BC

Terri Stumme - BC

Phil Corwin - BC

Luc Seufer - RrSG

Chris Pelling - RrSG

Paul McGrady - IPC

Susan Prosser - RrSG

Michael Palage-RySG

Vicky Sheckler - IPC

David Heasley - IPC

Carlton Samuels - ALAC

Apologies :

Don Blumenthal - RySG

Richard Leaning -  no soi

Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP

James Bladel - RrSG

Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Danielle Andela

Yolanda Jimenez
Terri Agnew

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/

Wiki page:

https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri Agnew

-------------------------------

 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 24 March 2015

     Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 24 March 2015

  Terri Agnew:Hello everyone, this meeting will being in 20 minutes

  Terri Agnew:sounds loud and clear

  Stephanie Perrin:sounds great

  Holly Raiche:Morning all

  Stephanie Perrin:Morning Holly!

  Chris Pelling:afternoon all

  Vicky Sheckler:hi

  val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge

  val sherman:hi Vicky

  val sherman:and all

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Alex Deacon

  Alex Deacon:Hello all...

  Terri Agnew:on Audio Terri Stumme and Susan Prosser

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Darcy Southwell

  Terri Agnew:Kiran Malancharuvil has joined audio

  steve metalitz:I have not voted and I do not vote for a Friday session.

  Kiran Malancharuvil:When did the "second" doodle poll go out?

  Luc Seufer:Paul there will be beers and steaks, just come!

  Mary Wong:@Kiran, on Thursday 19 March

  Kiran Malancharuvil:There are beers and steaks at more pleasant venues as well.

  Volker Greimann:a windowless room at that

  Volker Greimann:Kiran, i like your suggestion

  Luc Seufer:yeah but a bunch of merry fellows make up for it

  Volker Greimann:PPSAI working meeting with beer and steaks.... I have a feeling we will get a lot done

  Kiran Malancharuvil:That was Luc's suggestion.  I have no desire for this meeting.

  Mary Wong:@Volker, we actually have reserved the nice room - the one on the top floor with all the windows :)

  Kiran Malancharuvil:@Mary - It looks like the poll is now 7 to 7?

  Mary Wong:We got two other votes by email for Friday

  Volker Greimann:I know the room and it is worth the extra time to have at least some time during that meeting in a room with a view. We will be back in the darkened cloister soon enough

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Or we could spend that time not in a meeting...

  Kathy:Would someone like to read current IIIC5 text?

  Mary Wong:@Todd, from the staff perspective the "answer" is that we didn't feel we could delete III.C.5 entirely given last week's discussion.

  Luc Seufer:it seems in C.5 that's the registrant who is proactive

  Mary Wong:Sorry, just saw that I think that should be "clear and convincing"

  Terri Agnew:Jim Bikoff has joined audio

  Mary Wong:Suggestion - add Customer's provision of a reasonable defense as an illustrative e.g. of adequate reasons for refusal under C(2)?

  Mary Wong:And change C(5) to specifically address the human rights concern

  Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Vicky.  Good point about the distinction

  Carlton Samuels:Morning everybody. Dropping in for a limited time. Duty in paid work calls

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton

  steve metalitz:@Stephanie, this applies only to disclosure to the requester.

  Stephanie Perrin:we should make that crystal clear then

  Mary Wong:@Stephanie - see D. below

  Mary Wong:Sorry, E.

  Kathy:@but those private purposes can include harassment, anticompetitive activity, and

  Kathy:removal of criticism

  Kathy:it happens a lot...

  Kathy:so once the reveal is done, we have disclosed the Customer's address - and that's a big deal

  Holly Raiche:It is really aboutequal standards.  Are we not recognising a person's right to privacy - proecing their identity unless there is a clear (insert agreed language) reason

  Carlton Samuels:I think the balance is to be fair to all interests and achieve this without resorting to the judicial  process.

  Mary Wong:@Steph, re human rights language - no decision as of yet as to where to put it. Staff drafted the alternatives/description that follows in the next couple of pages for discussion. One possibility is to craft C.(5) to do this.

  Kathy:No- I dont' think it meets all of the concerns

  Kathy:+1 Stephanie

  Carlton Samuels:@Steph: Yes +1. Let's state the broader principle. We need to ensure we don't disconnect a right  from a person anywhere without  due process.

  Todd Williams:@Stephanie: the title is "Disclosure standards", and we've already made the distinction elsewhere b/w "disclosure" (to the complainant) and "publication" (to the world)

  Stephanie Perrin:It bears repetition here Todd, as this is getting to be a long and somewhat arcane document.

  Carlton Samuels:We need to establish room to determine what is a reasonable balance. And not run pell mell into granting advantage to one group that ordinarily they would need a court to decide.

  Holly Raiche:2 Carlton +1

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, UDRP and URS are mandatory administrative proceedings where a professional neutral makes the decision.

  Stephanie Perrin:If we were drafting legislation, we would be charied by our legal drafters to avoid repetition.  Since this is not a law, but a standard that will be read by a lot of non-legal practitioners, I would argue for clarity, clear exposition of first principles, and a certain amount of repetition where  it is important to remember the balance of rights.

  Luc Seufer:@Mary a similar system for disclosure/reveal would make sense to me

  Kathy:@Mary: in the real world, this would go to court... before a reveal.

  Kathy:so we are setting the standards...

  Kathy:Tx Mary!

 steve metalitz:+1 to Todd that pretext could be delat with specifically if necessary

  steve metalitz:dealt with

  Kiran Malancharuvil:I would very much prefer to deal with the text in Section II on agency.  Why are we restricting that discussion to the list?

  Stephanie Perrin:+1 Carlton, we do need to remember that we are attempting to set up a process that avoids Court.

  Graeme Bunton:wasn't attempting to restrict, Kiran

  Luc Seufer:we will, after we have heard about Berryhill's experience ;-)

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Yeah exactly Luc.  So we skip over it today so we have time to discuss Berryhill's "expertise"?

  Holly Raiche:We are also trying to make life a bit easy for registrars so they have clarity on when to reveal, as well as certainty (or close to) for the registrant on whether     and in what circumstances their details will be revealed to the requestor

  Stephanie Perrin:@Holly +1 indeed!

  Volker Greimann:Steve +1

  Stephanie Perrin:@Kiran I am confused by your query re Mr. Berryhill.

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Are we skipping over discussions on Section II in order to make more time to discuss the use of "experts" such as Mr. Berryhill?  What is unclear about that query?

  steve metalitz:@Kathy, one option is to present annex in draft report as "some options" as its title states and ask their views.  Perhaps not ideal but possible.

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Because that's fine, but I would have appreciated a heads up on that.

  Holly Raiche:@ Paul - suggested words?

  Mary Wong:Staff suggests not specifying titles - these may mean different things in different types of legal jurisdictions.

  Mary Wong:e.g. "attorney" (not a term used in all jurisdictions nor do all require a "bar" membership to practice law); "General Partner", "Principal" ...

 Kiran Malancharuvil:There are a lot of non-attorney's on the list that are representatives of this "side" of the issue

  Kiran Malancharuvil:"this side" being the IP requestor side

  Kiran Malancharuvil:This is not a court proceeding.  It is not a subpoena... it does not need ot be restricted to agents of the court

  Susan Kawaguchi:I am not an attorney and have submitted a substantial number of reveal requests

  Vicky Sheckler:@kathy - are you suggestion that rightsholders that can't afford a legal rep can't use this process?  I know rightsholders who  address online infringing activity themselves.

  Susan Kawaguchi:and have dones so with full knowledge of the law

  Kiran Malancharuvil:There is a misplaced sense of superiority associated with this section IMO

  Luc Seufer:Merci

  Darcy Southwell:Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150324/06fe36fe/attachment-0001.html>