The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 19 August 2014 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/mknlh8r
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll Call/Updates to SOI
- Conclude deliberations on Charter Category E
- [if time permits) Resume discussions on Charter Category F Question 1
- Next steps
Documents for Review:
Summary Status of WG Discussions on Cat E 14 August
PPSAI - Category F Question 1 - 11 August 2014
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140819-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: TBA
Attendees:
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Val Sherman – IPC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG
Frank Michlick – Individual
Volker Greimann-RrSG
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Holly Raiche – ALAC
David Heasley-IPC
Jim Bikoff-IPC
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Keith Kupferschmid- IPC
James Bladel - RrSG
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Alex Deacon – IPC
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Luc Seufer- RrSG
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
Daniel Burke – Individual
Tobias Sattler – RrSG
Roy Balleste – NCUC
Todd Williams – IPC
Kathy Kleiman – NCSG
Phil Corwin – BC
Justin Macy - BC
Phil Marano - IPC
Apologies:
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG
Susan Prosser - RrSG
Christian Dawson-ISPCP
Sarah Wyld - RrSG
Susan Kawaguchi – BC
Kristina Rosette – IPC
Darcy Southwell – RrSG
John Horton – BC
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Danielle Andela
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 19 August 2014:
Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the PPSAI call on the 19th August 2014
Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Holly, the operator will dial out to you in a minute
Holly Raiche:Thanks
Nathalie Peregrine:James Bladel has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:Jim Bikoff has joine the audio bridge
Carlton Samuels:Morning all
Nathalie Peregrine:Chris Pelling has also joined th call
Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the AC room
Chris Pelling:afternoon all, sorry for my tardiness
Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:Kristina Rosette sends her apology.
stephanie perrin:Sorry for my tardiness
stephanie perrin:sorry, csn you repeat the question
Kathy:yes
Don Blumenthal:We can hear you
Val Sherman 2:We can hear you, Stephanie
stephanie perrin:dont seem to have audio....will try to reconnect
steve metalitz:we hear you stephanie
Carlton Samuels:That question of what must be forwarded. That answer compels knowledge of what is received, meaning a triage operation to determine. So, are we back to asking P/P providers to read and/or request validation inforamtion?
Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the AC room
stephanie perrin:oh sorry I will get back in the queue....
Michele Neylon:+1 to James
steve metalitz:@james ,what are non-legal individuals?
Bladel:non-lawyers.
Michele Neylon:we get those $random threats
Michele Neylon:"it's illegal"
Bladel:threats to engage a lawyer by a non-lawyer = "legal communciation"?
Michele Neylon:"it's offensive"
Michele Neylon:all sent from $random gmail addresses
Michele Neylon:with zero proper contact details
stephanie perrin:I believe Michele and James are making my point.
Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: I agree with you on the first part. Quite apart from those relay required by the RAA, the rest is left to the P/P provider.
steve metalitz:+1 Kathy, the definitions do not need to be the same for relay and reveal.
Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: I can support different response frameworks for relay and reveal. +1
steve metalitz:@James So a photographer for example would need to retain a lawyer in order to try to contact the registrant of a website where her photo is displayed witout authorization?
Bladel:Yes. Lower bar for relay. Higher bar (subpoena, court order, warrant) for reveal.
Carlton Samuels:@Volker: +1 on distilling principles. We down in the weeds here
Bladel:@Steve: The issue was whether to treat 3rd party (non-LEA) reports equally, or whether "legal communications" were somehow privileged. Since we cannot clearly define the latter, I propose we treat all reports on a level basis.
stephanie perrin:@Steve, I dont think this is fair. AS I said, whichever way you fall on this it is not fair....I should be able to send a good faith exposition of the facts and have it relayed, without being or hiring a lawyer.
steve metalitz:+1 Stephanie
steve metalitz:@stepahnie or we could recommend that a standard form be part of implementation
Nathalie Peregrine:John Horton is also an apology for this call
Val Sherman 2:+ 1 Stephanie -- form could require certain basic information.
Carlton Samuels:@Steph on form. I'm afraid we'd be too prescriptive for a policy position!
Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa also sends apologies
Graeme Bunton:+1 James,
stephanie perrin:@Carlton....I understand we have limitations, but some basic requirements could be mandated....more as a guideline to set expectations (as in, if you want your stuff forwarded, here is what best practice says you have to supply,...
Kathy:+1 James
Griffin Barnett:@James, I understand your position, but at the same time, the legitimate complainants shouldn't be constrained on account of the bad actors; also agree with Stephanie
Bladel:@Griffin: This is why we need to be able to filter/screen the "chaff" to ensure that the legiimate complaints get thru.
Kathy:Quick note to the scribe that the idea of a web-based menu may not align with an RDS service. Couldyou sever the two ideas please?
Mary Wong:@Kathy, apologies, that was me - I'd thought you'd said the concept that James had suggested was compatible but yes, will change.
Kathy:@Mary!
Kathy:@Mary - tx!
Val Sherman 2:@james -- isnt that the difference between reveal and publication?
Kathy:That's a good question - what is reveal?
Volker Greimann:+1 James: We may want to differentiate those terms
Bladel:I thought we had established differences between "reveal" and "disclose"?
Alex Deacon:I thought we had also...
Don Blumenthal:There are differences but I don't think we decided how they would play out in pracice.
Don Blumenthal:practice
Mary Wong:@James, you're right that this was discussed and as Don says, the WG may need to delve further into it. The word "reveal" here is used broadly, and was taken from the Whois RT Report - where the Whois RT recommended minimum standard relay and reveal processes.
Bladel:ALso, the provider still has the right to cancel service for violation of TOS, non-payment, etc.
Kathy:@James: I view "reveal" as sharing information to the Requestor (some info), but Publication as disclosure to the world in the Whois
Griffin Barnett:+1 Kathy, I thought this was the terminology we used when creating our categories
steve metalitz:Agree we should have standard terminology for the two forms of "reveal" . Certainly provider needs to have broad discretion to terminate its service for a range of reasons (e.g., non-payment?).
stephanie perrin:We don't want to get down into the weeds Don, but we should not continue to violate existing law...my view of course
Don Blumenthal:We aren't. The providers would be. :)
stephanie perrin:We are into the world of remedies here...cancellation, as James has pointed out, is an effective remedy, publishing data, which could be dangerous or a violation of law, may be a less effective remedy.
Volker Greimann:James +1
steve metalitz:@James +1 on ability of provider to enforce terms of service
Graeme Bunton:agreed with Steve and James
Kathy:@James: would there be any terms of service that do not notify a customer prior to disclosure?
Luc Seufer:UDRP for once
Bladel:@Kathy - Not sure. But that would be one way for providers to differentiate themselves.
Bladel:Eactly, Luc.
stephanie perrin:Suppose someone else has hacked the site a common risk for human rights folks and dissenters....
Carlton Samuels:Thank you all
Kathy:@Mary: Can we add notes re: "reveal" also to Requestor - as alternative?
Kathy:Tx Don!
stephanie perrin:Thanks all!
