[bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 4 02:40:00 UTC 2013
I support expanding the clause as well to include malware, phishing, etc.
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com
To: abrams at google.com
CC: sdelbianco at netchoice.org; 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)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:19:36 +0000
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> wrote:
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.
Andy and Aparna
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco
<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)
It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link)
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) 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), 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 /
And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy
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.
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso