[bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
stephvg at gmail.com
stephvg at gmail.com
Tue Sep 3 23:08:23 UTC 2013
My concern is that names claiming to be bona fide donation sites, but are in actual fact being scam sites, would then be able to hide behind a proxy Whois service and attempt to deceive users.
Hope that helps,
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 01:05, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> a écrit :
> I'm not sure I understand what the concerns might be. Is it that a name used to solicit donations can be protected by privacy/proxy or that it can not.
>
> I'm in favor of such names being afforded privacy/proxy protection with the proviso that such protection, and perhaps use of the name itself, is subject to to non-abusive use and rapid action in the case of abuse.
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:00 PM, "stephvg at gmail.com" <stephvg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> +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/20130904/72cfda34/attachment.html>
More information about the Bc-gnso
mailing list