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

Tue Mar 31 02:23:59 UTC 2015

And replying to my own comment, may I repeat the heart of Carlton's 
response, my emphasis added on parts I consider key:

It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to businesses and allow only individuals. I now support non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are conserved.]

Following on, it is compelling thatfor a disclosure and/or reveal, it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose and/or reveal.

We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being will look at the information provided in support of the allegation and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and necessary.  Trust and verify.

There cannot be a trust deficit from the  requestor's side.  Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust.Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone - that inspires trust.

On 2015-03-30 22:13, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> If I may, I think Carlton will in good time explain what he means by 
> the expression "In good reason", probably accompanied by one of his 
> other favorite expressions, "let not your heart be troubled". If you 
> read past the first line, he was pointing out that reasonable people 
> on opposite ends ("diametric needs") must compromise and find a way to 
> accommodate each other.
> I believe Phil just stated our key question quite succinctly.  How do 
> we avoid going to Court, while ensuring that the requestor is 
> legitimate and duly authorized, and that the service provider is not 
> unduly burdened with the responsibility of sorting out a deluge of 
> requests, nor the beneficial domain holder forced to explain why they 
> have a right to privacy.
> Seems doable to me, given time and patience.
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2015-03-30 21:53, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
>> Thanks Holly.  My question to Carlton was not a substantive response 
>> to your comments.  It was a question to seek clarification as to 
>> whether or not any substantive response that I may offer would 
>> automatically be written off as "unreasonable."  I see from your 
>> response that even my desire for clarification on what Carlton meant 
>> results in being told that I my question is a "disappointment." I'd 
>> like to continue in dialogue in these important issues, but if the 
>> plan is to simply shout down any views other than the one offered in 
>> your email - before such views can even be offered - I'm not sure 
>> that I want to participate in that arrangement. Nor do I think it is 
>> in the collegial spirit we have enjoyed in this group to date.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net]
>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:43 PM
>> To: Kiran Malancharuvil
>> Cc: McGrady, Paul D.; Carlton Samuels; PPSAI
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
>>
>> Kiran and Paul
>>
>> I am a bit disappointed by your responses.  What Carlton and I (and 
>> others) have been doing is simply explaining what we believe should 
>> be required before personal details of the beneficial registrant are 
>> revealed.   It is absolutely in line with basic privacy law and very 
>> much in line with the discussions that have taken place - viz., what 
>> the requestor should provide by way of information, and some 
>> confirmation of the status of the requestor such that the reveal 
>> request is by an individual with the authority and knowledge to do so.
>>
>> That is not dogma and it is not unreasonable.
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:28 pm, Kiran Malancharuvil 
>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also eagerly await a clarification.
>>>
>>> If there are members of the group that view their opinions as dogma, 
>>> rendering discussion and attempts a reach a compromise useless, I 
>>> can think of a lot better ways to use my time.
>>>
>>> K
>>>
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:07 PM, McGrady, Paul D. 
>>> <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Carlton,
>>>
>>> What do you mean when you say "cannot be refuted in good reason"?  
>>> I'd like to continue the dialog, but not if you will have labeled me 
>>> unreasonable in advance for doing so.  Thanks in advance for your 
>>> thoughts/clarification.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at i
>>> cann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Carlton Samuels
>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:04 PM
>>> To: Holly Raiche
>>> Cc: PPSAI
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
>>>
>>> Holly's intervention cannot be refuted in good reason.
>>>
>>> FWIW, our objective ought to be to get to a place where reasonable 
>>> men and women can accommodate each other's competing and diametric 
>>> needs without resorting to the court house. That requires balance.
>>>
>>> It is reasonable to assume a P/P registration, properly constituted
>>> and all rules applied, is effected for cause. [Since 2010, I have
>>> personally abandoned my position to deny P/P registration to
>>> businesses and allow only individuals. I now support
>>> non-discrimination for P/P registrations, so long as the rules apply
>>> equally, across the board. The fundamental idea is one need not know
>>> the reason for such a registration, so long as the rules are
>>> conserved.]
>>>
>>> Following on, it is compelling that for a disclosure and/or reveal, 
>>> it must be the agent alleging violation of rules, process or law 
>>> that must demonstrate that it is good and reasonable to disclose 
>>> and/or reveal.
>>>
>>> We are trying to avoid going to court - which is always open to the 
>>> IP community or anyone else! - on the basis that a reasonable being 
>>> will look at the information provided in support of the allegation 
>>> and agree a disclosure and/or reveal is/are both reasonable and 
>>> necessary. Trust and verify.
>>>
>>> There cannot be a trust deficit from the  requestor's side. 
>>> Attestation of standing to make the request is an element of trust. 
>>> Some worthy must stand up, ready to be counted. I don't care if its 
>>> a lawyer, ranking officer or general poohbah. Just someone - someone 
>>> - that inspires trust.
>>>
>>> -Carlton
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>>> =============================
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Holly Raiche 
>>> <h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto: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 ICANN's 
>>> 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 ar
> e
>>    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 haven't 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 thr
> o
>>   ugh 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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>
>>>
>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. 
>>> Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete 
>>> it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended 
>>> to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this 
>>> message without the permission of the author.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. 
>> Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete 
>> it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended 
>> to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this 
>> message without the permission of the author.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150330/ef4485f5/attachment-0001.html>