[PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment

Sun Jul 5 21:18:02 EEST 2015

I would add to Kathy's excellent explanation, that people who are 
already aware they are at risk are welladvised to use permanant proxy 
folks to register for them....such as a lawyer. If they get dragged to a 
UDRP, all is exposed anyway.
And it feels like thousands of hours...but I guess is only hundreds.
And I second the motion to put Kathy on the list, I keep adding her on 
items where she has written the material but sometimes I forget and this 
is just stupid, she should be on  the policy cttee list.
cheers Steph

On 2015-07-05 12:24, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Could someone please post the following email to the PC-NCSG (since I 
> am not currently on the list)? BTW, could someone please add me to the 
> PC-NCSG? After 15 years of writing comments, we should be able to hold 
> these conversations directly :-).
>
> Fortunately, that's not what it says, Ed. That's what the IP guys 
> wanted; that's not what they got. What the proposed rule says is that 
> the IP guys get to make their best case to the Proxy/Privacy 
> Providers, and then the Providers reach out to their Customers (the 
> real or "beneficial" Registrants). The Customer can respond that their 
> website is using a trademark to critique or criticize - certainly a 
> fair use in the US and many other places -- or that they are using an 
> overlapping term as a regular dictionary word for purposes totally 
> unrelated to the trademark owner (e.g., the word fox, or time, or 
> people as Fox Broadcasting or Time Warner would not use them).
>
> Further, even if the Customer does not get a chance to respond (e.g, 
> on vacation or the notification email went into spam), the Provider 
> still looks at the allegations of the IP guys and the use of the 
> domain name and on their own authority evaluates the allegations. 
> (You'll never guess who added that provision, and who supported it.) 
> So this means that the Providers will be looking for those battered 
> women's shelters, political dissidents, LGBT sites, etc.
>
> We also push always and all the time for the option of allowing the 
> "take down" of a domain name rather than the "reveal" of its data -- 
> an option being preserved in the writing of the PPSAI WG's proposal 
> for any Provider to offer. We call it the "Wendy Seltzer" rule.
>
> We've fought for many protections in the draft - hundreds if not 
> thousands of hours have gone into it. It is the best balance we could 
> strike for cheap, accessible, available proxy/privacy services -- and 
> we were up against an army of IP attorneys.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
> p.s. in Stockholm with documentary screenings so on and offline.
>
>
> :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sorry for getting to this late, appreciate all of the hard work 
>> put into the document, but I have trouble endorsing a statement that 
>> "strongly supports" a requirement that places registrants in a 
>> position of having, without a court order,  to chose between 
>> surrendering their free speech rights (domain name) or their personal 
>> data. I hardly think we should be an enthusiastic about a position 
>> that could, for example, force a domestic violence victim to lose his 
>> or her domain name linked to a page about  abuse rather than reveal 
>> his or her name to his or her abuser,  or force someone who supports 
>> LGBT rights from losing his or her domain name linked to LGBT rights, 
>> or anything else for that matter, rather than reveal his or her 
>> identity and location.
>>
>> If I've misstated the situation please correct me. I recognise that 
>> this might be better than the alternative but I don't think it is 
>> something we should "strongly support". As someone with an active 
>> restraining order against an ex I would hate to be placed in a 
>> situation where I would have to lose my domain name rather than 
>> reveal my personal data to a third party. One does not go through a 
>> process of being issued a new government identity numbers, getting 
>> court orders restricting release of drivers license and passport 
>>  information to LEA, changing portions of ones name, to then be 
>> forced to chose between safety and speech. Although it may be better 
>> than the alternative under this completely reckless attempt by LEA to 
>> shred online privacy, it still is a choice I don't believe we should 
>> endorse. If I'm wrong please tell me why - I stand ready to be educated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>     I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit
>>     and I have just done that.  I am doing a last re-check of the
>>     document to make sure we did not miss anything.  Kudos to Kathy
>>     and James for doing the heavy lifting on this set of comments.  I
>>     have made two rather substantive recommendations....I do not
>>     think we should even think of compromising on the issue of
>>     commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the
>>     petitions so no need to concede any ground.  We need to be ready
>>     for a battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are
>>     still complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing
>>     some of their own by now.
>>     cheers Stephanie
>>     PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so
>>     appear to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what??  I
>>     would hate to have a really good campaign tarnished by some kind
>>     of trolls...
>>
>>     On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>     we got the comment for  Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services
>>>     Issues  report ready for review and endorsement, it is also
>>>     ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght.
>>>     the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it
>>>     within next days before that date .
>>>
>>>
>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>>     this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy
>>>     and Stephanie.  thanks for their leadership here and all their
>>>     efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report
>>>     outcome.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Best Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150705/91c75621/attachment.html>