7 April 2015
- Mary Wong
Analytics
The next Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday 07 April 2015 at 1400 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET).
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/or4fog8
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ppsai/
Agenda:
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Continue deliberations on Category F, specifically: (a) attestation/signatory for Requests; (b) Section III.C(5); (c) non-use of high-volume automated processes; and (d) the Annex.
- Next steps/next meeting
Documents for Review:
Draft Disclosure Text - updated 6 Apr 2015
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-07apr15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ppsai-07apr15-en.pdf
Attendees:
Frank Michlick – Individual
Justin Macy - BC
Val Sherman – IPC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Kathy Kleiman – NCSG
Darcy Southwell – RrSG
Todd Williams – IPC
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Jim Bikoff - IPC
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Alex Deacon –IPC
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
Phil Corwin – BC
Chris Pelling – RrSG
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Richard Leaning – no soi
David Hughes – IPC
Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG
Terri Stumme - BC
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Vicky Sheckler – IPC
Susan Kawaguchi - BC
Luc Seufer – RrSG
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
Roger Carney – RrSG
David Heasley - IPC
Apologies:
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Lindsay Hamilton-Reid – RrSG
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
James Bladel – RrSG
Paul McGrady – IPC
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 07 April 2015
Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 07 April 2015
Mary Wong:I can hear you
Mary Wong:Clear as a bell :)
Michele Neylon:Graeme I can hear you
Michele Neylon:though I'm not listening
Holly Raiche:I'm not hearing anything - but then noone is talking?
Michele Neylon:I've got music on
Chris Pelling:clicking noised on bridge
Frank Michlick:I'm listing to a podcast ;-)
Chris Pelling:ok clicking seems intermitent, if it gets on my nerves ill calll back in
Chris Pelling::)
Frank Michlick:Will stop that though when this call starts.
Frank Michlick:hello!
val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge
Graeme Bunton:Thanks Val
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm a bit late
Nathalie Peregrine:Todd Williams and Vicky Schedkler have joined the call
Kathy:Sorry Graeme -- too many holidays!
Nathalie Peregrine:Michael Shoukry has joined rhe call
Kathy Kleiman:I think we should bar it, but how do you know?
Mary Wong:Yes it's at the end
Nathalie Peregrine:Terri Stumme is on the audio bridge
Mary Wong:Last para in blue (sorry, having audio and voice issues)
Kathy Kleiman:Good paragraph - can we move it up in the doc?
Darcy Southwell:I agree with Graeme from a service provider's perspective.
Stephanie Perrin:I think the threshold for asking for a reveal has to be a lot higher than for the others....
Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined the room
Carlton Samuels:Morning all
Stephanie Perrin:Therefore, we need to add language here. I have no objection to the service provider, for instance, automatically forwarding any requests.
Stephanie Perrin:"any steps in the process" makes it over-broad...
Stephanie Perrin:"in the absence of human review" also makes me a bit nervous, we would have to define human review.
Kathy Kleiman:New II.D
Kathy Kleiman:+1 Volker
Kathy Kleiman:quality and quantity
steve metalitz:We ashould also find automated high volume refusals to disclose and automated high volume responses from customers objectionable.
Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call
Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: Higher threshold for reveal +1.
vicky sheckler:disagree w/ stephanie and carlton
Michele Neylon:whoever is being noisy can you please use the mute button
Carlton Samuels:I can't hear Steve....I'm on A/C Audio only
Volker Greimann:true, Steve
Nathalie Peregrine:Please all mute mics when not speaking.
Kathy Kleiman:But it doesn't cover everything...
Stephanie Perrin:Steve you are fading in and out
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: Yes, attestation at all levels +1
Stephanie Perrin:agree with the belt and suspenders
Stephanie Perrin:people are disappearing frequently
Chris Pelling:i left and came back
Chris Pelling:way better
Chris Pelling:no clicking at all
Stephanie Perrin:IS everyone having fade in and out or do I need to redial?
Nathalie Peregrine:If you are having issues with AC audio, please dial into the phone bridge, or we can dial out to you.
Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy
Chris Pelling:I agree with Kathy
Mary Wong:The words "high volume, automated processes" are from the RAA.
Stephanie Perrin:In other words, Humans do use computers to send things out....
Luc Seufer:Just as an FYI the French DPA allows AFNIC to disclose private data but the request and the disclosure need to be reviewed by a human.
Chris Pelling:I would agree with Michele, as long as each notice is reviewed by a LIVING and breithing person it is ok
Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: Let's err on the side of TMI; keep it and look to placement
Mary Wong:Yes
val sherman:+1 Graeme and Michele -- if there is human review, the communication should not be considered automated
Mary Wong:With suggested edits from Volker
Kathy Kleiman:very responsive
Carlton Samuels:@Steve: There was the use of the word 'solely' there as well
Kathy Kleiman:@Steve: I think you summarized the concerns well
Mary Wong:Would "human rights (e.g. FoE or privacy)" work?
vicky sheckler:that is not a pretext
Holly Raiche:Agree with Volker and Stephanie
Volker Greimann:Stephanie +1
Michele Neylon:shes' cutting out
Volker Greimann:what is violated by the reveal is always the privacy., but now always human rights
Chris Pelling:I agree
Michele Neylon:privacy is a human right though ?
Volker Greimann:so if it needs to be violated, the threshhold should be met
val sherman:The mere desire of the customer to preserve their privacy cannot be sufficient to refuse a legitimate request, meeting all other criteria of these standards
steve metalitz:(5) only comes into play once requestor has met "threshold for "'reveal" (actually, for disclosure)
Holly Raiche:Yes Michele - but what is being protected is privacy - which should be the default position
Volker Greimann:Exactly
vicky sheckler:strongly disagee w/ stephanie. that is not a pretext, which is what the provision todd wrote was trying to addres
Carlton Samuels:@Graeme: I would prefer the use of the word 'mainly' or a phrase that removes the [artificial] limit
Michele Neylon:Holly yes but the privacy or lack of it can stem speech
steve metalitz:No, that does not make sense, Stephanie, in light of our discussions over the past 16 months
Holly Raiche:@ Michele - true enough, but what Stephanie is saying is that people ought to be able to choose to protct their personal informtion unless there is a demonstrable reason otherwise
Carlton Samuels:@Stephanie: +1 Should be no need to prove harm to protect privacy
Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - the language is there - just use privacy at the end
vicky sheckler:there is a general rule about when the p/p customer can request refusal of the disclosure, agqain AFTER the requester has provided the requisite information about a violation of the requrester's rights
Mary Wong:The framework language since this was first presented has been premised (in Section III) on the customer providing reasons to the provider NOT to disclose.
Mary Wong:As Vicky notes, this happens AFTER a provider receives a full and accurate request (per the framework requirements)
vicky sheckler:Kathy - rights to authroship are also a human right. privacy does not defacto trump any other tights no matter what
vicky sheckler:rights to authorship are in the human declaration of human rights
Kathy Kleiman:legitimate rights and protections (e.g., freedom of expression and freedom of association).”
Stephanie Perrin:I would be happy to provide edits after the call...
Carlton Samuels:We agreed all applicants following the same set of rules can have a P/P registration. We cannot now say to maintain it post registration and in the absence of credible evidence of infraction of rules, one must prove harm to retain it!
Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: +1. Let's go for more explicit. Err on the side of TMI here.
vicky sheckler:i agree w/ Steve. feels like we are going backwards
Kathy Kleiman:+1 Volker
Holly Raiche:That is how I understood what Volker was saying
vicky sheckler:or we get rid of item 5.
steve metalitz:Looking forward to seeing your language Stephanie.
Kathy Kleiman:@Vicky - I think we are getting close; and it is very important
Mary Wong:@Stephanie, isn't that example you give already covered by the current language? Esp if we say "human rights (e.g FoE and rights to privacy)"?
Kathy Kleiman:Todd's language is good - just tweaking
Stephanie Perrin:I agree, we are just talking about tweaking
Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - are we not really saying that respect for privacy through genuine tests before reveal is allowed serves to protect the other rights
Todd Williams:I'm back. Sorry. I'll check the transcript on what I missed.
Mary Wong:Note also footnote #2, which adds Val's suggestion for what the form of attestation might look like (bottom of pg 4)
Kathy Kleiman:self-attestation, hmmm
Kathy Kleiman:it seems to have some limitations
Stephanie Perrin:@ Holly yes that is the bottom line, this service protects privacy and confidentiality of customer data in order to protect other fundamental human rights (including Privacy)
Mary Wong:To clarify - the main text specifies WHAT the attestation requires, the footnote suggests HOW this might look
Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - Tks
vicky sheckler:stephanie - or to protect those that violate others rights. p/p services are abused by wrondoers too. Well over a majority of the sites we monitor that engage in widespread infringement are behind p/p serivces
Mary Wong:Note that those ccTLD operators whose disclosure requests policies we could find requires at most "authorized representative" and certification/attestation that any disclosed info will only be used for the specified purpose.
vicky sheckler:we need to find the proper balance, not keep saying that one right trump[s over anythign else
Stephanie Perrin:@ Vicky I understand that. If a requestor can make a valid case to prove that, the customer data is revealed.
Holly Raiche:@ Vicki - I think we are all aware of the abuse of p/p services, and I don't think access to information by law agencies is problematic for anyone in this WG
Stephanie Perrin:Indeed, we are not talking about LEAs here, we are talking about civil action.
Holly Raiche:@ Vicki and Stephanie - agreed
vicky sheckler:Kathy - that seems like more than what cctld operators are requiring. Not sure why we can't follow the ccTLd oeprators lead here
Mary Wong:We have not come across any published policy that requires documentation other than ID and TM registration cert (for example).
Mary Wong:Published ccTLD policy, I mean.
Chris Pelling:its putting an enforcable action for being able to sue the requestor
Stephanie Perrin:Is this not the first time that we have looked at the issue? Why follow the ccTLDs?
vicky sheckler:+1 w/ Val
Mary Wong:For example, CIRA (.ca) requires a form with name, address and reasons to be stated, accompanied by a notarized/certified copy of a TM registration plus proof of requestor identity.
Mary Wong:@Stephanie, it was just to see if we can find guidance or common practice that, if appropriate, we can consider utilizing.
Chris Pelling:sorry, its having the paperwork to show it
Stephanie Perrin:@Mary, and I do agree that the CIRA example is better than many
Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: But we are setting up probably a whole new scale for reveal requests - probably far beyond ccTLD requests
Carlton Samuels:@Val: Would it mean the same if there is some registration of requestor's connection to the rights owner?
Chris Pelling:@Steve its not really documents, its a single page in most cases
vicky sheckler:i need to drop off. sorry
Stephanie Perrin:This process definitely has to set the standards for the agency represnetation. Otherwise, we know that services will be outsourced to the lowest price.
Kathy Kleiman:@All: It's an accountability issue
Stephanie Perrin:Yes it is an accountability issue.
val sherman:Carlton -- i'm not sure I understand your question.
Mary Wong:@Kathy, agreed on scale - so question is whether any particular requirement is both practical and justified in the context.
Volker Greimann:caveat: unless I have to...
Frank Michlick:thank you
Carlton Samuels:@Val: To relieve seeing contracts fto attest standing, could a pre-reg work?
Kathy Kleiman:Tx Graeme and All!
Darcy Southwell:Thanks!