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

Tue Mar 31 12:17:29 UTC 2015

Please remember that copyright - the rights to ones authorship - is also a fundamental human right under the declaration of human rights.

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

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 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.

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><mailto: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><mailto: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 icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at i
cann.org<http://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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150331/ab6b2e41/attachment-0001.html>