[bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)

Tue Sep 3 22:59:41 UTC 2013

I would agree.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 4 sept. 2013 à 00:33, "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade at hotmail.com> a écrit :

> 
> I do have concerns about anonomity in funds solicitation sites. 
> 
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:02:27 
> To: <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>; <abrams at google.com>
> Cc: <bc-gnso at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert
> Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's not entirely Andy's point, Bill.   Andy first suggested we allow privacy protections for a website that solicited donations.    
> 
> 
> Do BC members believe that donation-soliciting sites should be eligible for privacy/proxy services?   
> 
> 
> As Andy notes, donors are often fooled by sites that pretend to be a reputable group helping with an emergency.  The Red Cross/Red Crescent has talked about this at ICANN before.  Should we really be recommending that ICANN allow privacy/proxy services for any site that solicits donations, as opposed to payments for services/goods/ads? 
> 
> 
> Please read (and react) to the text proposed for this section (page 2, re-attached for your convenience), because the discussion thread sometimes tells only half the story. 
> 
> 
> From: <Smith>, Bill <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> >
> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM
> To: Andy Abrams <abrams at google.com <mailto:abrams at google.com> >
> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso at icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>  list" <bc-gnso at icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org> >
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse. 
> 
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Andy Abrams" <abrams at google.com <mailto:abrams at google.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Steve, 
> 
> 
> We really appreciate your work on this document and your efforts to capture the discussions from last week.  Our only minor follow-up comment relates to the use of the term "donations" in the first sentence of "Eligibility for Protected Registration."  Per our previous comment, I think there are some issues with including "donations" as a per se reason to disqualify one from taking advantage of privacy/proxy services, given the frequent connection between donations and political or other free speech.  With that said, I recognize that there is value in preventing a specific abuse relating to donations, namely, charity scams that solicit money.  Perhaps we can reach a compromise by removing the term from the sentence, but by broadening the second clause in the sentence to include other abuses beyond IP infringement, including phishing, malware, financial scams, etc.  
> 
> 
> We'd love to hear others' views on this point.  
> 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> 
> Andy and Aparna 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf> )  It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs> ) 
> 
> 
> Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.pdf> ) where the BC said:  "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." 
> 
> 
> Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%20Report.pdf> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: 
> 
> . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes 
> . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; 
> . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. 
> 
> 
> And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%202013%20RAA%20%5BFINAL%5D.pdf> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call.  
> 
> 
> Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve DelBianco 
> Executive Director 
> NetChoice 
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org 
> &#43;1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
> Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 
> (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130904/9ca035e5/attachment.html>