[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Reveal requests
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue Mar 31 14:01:46 UTC 2015
I know, but it is also one of the more difficult areas to check as there
is no central repository. So as a provider, all we see is claims that
could be either true or false and that have to be taken at face value.
And even when an artist believes he holds all rights in a title and goes
after infringing parties, he can still be found to have ripped it off
someone else and be ordered to pay millions to the other artist.
VG
Am 31.03.2015 um 14:17 schrieb Victoria Sheckler:
> 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 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 <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>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150331/c1ebd552/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list