[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Susan

I am very relaxed about the word legal/attorney or whatever

If  you or someone else acting with your knowledge and/or approval seeks to have the information for a ‘reveal’ in the agreed form, terrific!

The cases that worry me are when notices are either automatically sent or sent without someone with the requisite knowledge or skill authorising it - and it is those situations for which I want terminology

Thanks for your comments

Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 10:42 am, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com> wrote:

> 
> Holly 
> 
> I absolutely agree with "The last bit is to insist that the request is
> genuine, that whomever is making the request has seriously considered the
> facts and believes there is a prima facie case of infringement.²  But I do
> not agree this has to be an attorney.
> 
> What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for requests
> to proxy vendors?  I find it fairly difficult to submit a request to a
> proxy vendor.  If I have built a relationship with them then they may have
> our trademark information on record but I still have to email a
> predetermined email address and state my claims in the request.  No one
> else has the same email address to submit requests to as far as I know.
> 
> If it is not a vendor that I have built a relationship with then figuring
> out how to submit a request can be difficult or it is a form I am required
> to fill out with a captcha.  I may have missed the description of computer
> automated proxy requests but it would be good to clarify what we are
> trying to solve for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Domain Name Manager
> Facebook Legal Dept.
> 
> Phone - 650 485-6064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/30/15, 3:37 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
>> Folks
>> 
>> Could we go back a bit please to remember, that originally, Whois was
>> just a set of protocols for communications between computers back in the
>> days of ARPAnet (apologies to those who were on the Whois Review team -
>> who know this) When ICANN was established, one of the things it took over
>> was Whois - and it eventually became something it had not been - a public
>> repository of personal information. It created that fundamental conflict
>> between the transmogrified requirement on registrars  to publish personal
>> information of registrants as against the fundamental rights of
>> individuals to protect their personal information unless there are
>> established and accepted reasons otherwise.  The EWG is ICANN¹s attempt
>> to address that conflict - between information that can be made public,
>> information that should not be public and information that should be
>> revealed in limited circumstances to accredited individuals.  And until
>> EWG recommendations are worked through and implemented, we are still
>> dealing with the inherent conflict between a right to privacy and
>> circumstances in which there is a countervailing obligation to reveal
>> personal information. But the starting point must always be to protect
>> privacy rights UNLESS there is an acceptable and evidenced reason to
>> reveal that information.
>> 
>> What we are working through, as I understand it, is situations which we
>> can all agree, amount to the evidenced based, prima facie reason for
>> revealing personal information.  Law Enforcement is the easy bit, at
>> least in theory.  While the details need to be worked through, I haven¹t
>> heard anyone object to revealing personal information when we are talking
>> about either serious abuse of the DNS or tracking down criminal activity.
>> The IP cases are more difficult.  However, I think we have made really
>> good progress in setting out what a requestor should provide to a service
>> provider so that the evidenced, prima facie case is made out. The last
>> bit is to insist that the request is genuine, that whomever is making the
>> request has seriously considered the facts and believes there is a prima
>> facie case of infringement.
>> 
>> I think we have all become aware of situations where  automated notices
>> are generated alleging infringement.  Clearly, that must question the
>> extent (if any) that serious consideration has been given as to whether
>> there has been infringement. So if we are all to agree on the sorts of
>> information that a requestor must provide to a service provider, we need
>> to be sure that the information has, in fact, been considered and signed
>> off - not by a computer program but by a real and responsible person who
>> has enough responsibility in the organisation to take responsibility for
>> what would otherwise be an infringement of privacy rights.  It is not
>> about an equality between requestor and beneficial registrant.  The
>> registrant has - a priori - the right to the protection of their personal
>> information.  The onus is fairly and squarely on the requestor to
>> credibly establish the prima facie case to infringement of those rights
>> to privacy.  As I have said, the language we have worked through goes a
>> long way to meeting that.   What we are asking for is that the PERSON who
>> stands behind such requests has enough authority within the organisation
>> to do so. 'Authorised legal representative' has been suggested.  Happy if
>> other words can be found.  But what we want is for there to be a real,
>> credible individual with the responsibility that can back up each
>> individual request.
>> 
>> End my rant
>> 
>> Holly
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>