[bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Sep 6 12:00:06 UTC 2013
I support the need for the fee to be cost recovery.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Fares David <DFares at 21cf.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:10:08
To: <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG)
for directory services (Whois)
Thanks Steve. I have no objections with the paragraph below. I would suggest that on page 6, if we accept that users should pay a fee for gated access that we should qualify that by saying the fee should be limited to cost recovery. In fact, I question whether gated access shouldn't be part of the cost of doing business for registrars. I would welcome thoughts from others. Thanks for all of your efforts in coordinating these comments.
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:04 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org list
Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
This is "Last Call" for members who would object to filing the attached comments by tomorrow's deadline.
Since I circulated a draft on Monday, we have seen no objections. But we did see some excellent debate about this paragraph:
Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights. And the EWG's "Maximum Protected Registration" should only be available to registrants who demonstrate a need for privacy to protect at-risk free-speech uses.
Google questioned the idea of per-se restricting donation-seeking domains from using privacy/proxy services. Looks to me like the majority of subsequent comments were in favor of retaining the per-se restriction above.
But as a by-product of that discussion, several of you wanted to add a few more offenses to the list of things that privacy/proxy eligible domains would promise not to do. So I've revised that first sentence to read:
Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights, distribution of malware, phishing, or other fraud.
Unless more than 5 members object, I will file these comments by 3pm EST on Friday 6-Sep.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org> >
Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:45 AM
To: "bc-gnso at icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org> list" <bc-gnso at icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org> >
Subject: FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
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%20> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs%20> )
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%20> ) 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%20> ), 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%20> ), 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.
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
More information about the Bc-gnso