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

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Phil
I agree - it IS about assurance - as long as that assurance in credible. Sorry if I misled everyone

Holly
On 31 Mar 2015, at 1:18 pm, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> With respect to --
> 
> 	Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights 	should give ground to those ecoomics.  
> 
> Sorry if this is harsh, but I made no argument and if you perceived one that was your misreading of what I wrote. 
> 
> I was raising questions. I am not dismissing the concerns raised by Kathy and seconded by you and others. I was questioning whether requiring that the request be signed by an individual at a certain level of authority would effectively address it. 
> 
> It seems to me that this discussion is less about the credentials of the requestor but some assurance that the process leading to the request met a minimum standard, and that some attestation by the requestor that a certain amount of due diligence has preceded the request might be a more effective approach. 
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
> 
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net] 
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58 PM
> To: Phil Corwin
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
> 
> Hi Phil
> 
> And that is our concern.  If someone is signing off on notices by the 'hundreds per day', then it will be difficult to accept that much thought has been given to any particular notice.  And we are talking about revealing information that, for whatever reason, that person/company values enough to go to the trouble of using a p/p provider.  As the Whois Report acknowledged, there are quite legitimate uses of P/P services - which, under privacy protections, people are entitled to use.  
> 
> I am not an expert on costs of rights holders.  But I am not terribly comfortable with accepting that it is okay to reveal private personal information when the threshold test is based on a computer program or the trainee in the company.  Sorry if that's harsh, but the basis of your argument seems to be based on the economics of rights holders, and that privacy rights should give ground to those ecoomics.  
> 
> It's not my starting point.  My starting point is the right to privacy unless good reason can be established.
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:22 pm, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 
>> If automatically generated requests are the harm being targeted I'm not sure that requiring a human of particular status to sign off on the request will effectively address it.
>> 
>> The US courts have been dealing with hundreds of thousands of "robo-signed" foreclosure notices that were signed off on by someone at a law firm, albeit at the pace of hundreds per day.
>> 
>> So how do we reconcile the desire of rights holders to be able to transmit a request without excessive costs with concerns about the process being abused, especially via automated means or the adoption of low standards for generating requests?
>> 
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>> Virtualaw LLC
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>> Suite 1050
>> Washington, DC 20004
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>> 
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>> 
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Frank 
>> Michlick
>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:00 PM
>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
>> 
>> On 2015-03-30 7:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
>>> What I do not understand is the concept of automated notices for 
>>> requests to proxy vendors?
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think we're trying to prevent a similar scenario that happened with 
>> invalid whois complaints a while back.
>> 
>> Some trademark-related service providers were sending automated 
>> mass-complaints against large numbers of domain names to ICANN and 
>> registrars. One per domain, but often hundreds if not thousands; 
>> submitted by a script. This is a scenario I'd like to see avoided here.
>> 
>> Another nuance about these providers is that while they may have been 
>> authorized by the trademark holder to obtain the domains, the 
>> companies were neither law-firms nor were the emails send directly by 
>> people working for the trademark holder.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Frank Michlick
>> --
>> Registrar Consultant, DomainCooon Inc.
>> p: (514) 315-1050
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> 
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 
>> 03/27/15 _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15