<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:00 PM, "<a href="mailto:stephvg@gmail.com">stephvg@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:stephvg@gmail.com">stephvg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>I would agree.
<div><br>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div style="font-family: Arial; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur<br>
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">T (UK): +44 (0)</span>7583 457053</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">Skype: SVANGELDER</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "><a href="http://www.stephanevangelder.com/" target="_blank">www.StephaneVanGelder.com</a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; ">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">----------------<br>
</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; ">Facebook: </span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant">www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "><br>
</span>
<div>LinkedIn: <a href="http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/" title="View public profile" name="webProfileURL">fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>Le 4 sept. 2013 à 00:33, "Marilyn Cade " <<a href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a>> a écrit :</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
I do have concerns about anonomity in funds solicitation sites. <br>
<br>
<br>
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:02:27 <br>
To: <<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>>; <<a href="mailto:abrams@google.com">abrams@google.com</a>><br>
Cc: <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert<br>
Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, but that's not entirely Andy's point, Bill. Andy first suggested we allow privacy protections for a website that solicited donations.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Do BC members believe that donation-soliciting sites should be eligible for privacy/proxy services?
<br>
<br>
<br>
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?
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <Smith>, Bill <<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a> <<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>> ><br>
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM<br>
To: Andy Abrams <<a href="mailto:abrams@google.com">abrams@google.com</a> <<a href="mailto:abrams@google.com">mailto:abrams@google.com</a>> ><br>
Cc: Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a> <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> >, "<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org</a>>
list" <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org</a>> ><br>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse. <br>
<br>
On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Andy Abrams" <<a href="mailto:abrams@google.com">abrams@google.com</a> <<a href="mailto:abrams@google.com">mailto:abrams@google.com</a>> > wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Steve, <br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
We'd love to hear others' views on this point. <br>
<br>
<br>
Best, <br>
<br>
<br>
Andy and Aparna <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a> <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> > wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf</a>>
) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs</a>> )
<br>
<br>
<br>
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 <<a href="http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.pdf">http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.pdf</a>>
) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database."
<br>
<br>
<br>
Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <<a href="http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%20Report.pdf">http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%20Report.pdf</a>> ), where
we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: <br>
<br>
. Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes <br>
. Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; <br>
. 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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <<a href="http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%202013%20RAA%20%5BFINAL%5D.pdf">http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%202013%20RAA%20%5BFINAL%5D.pdf</a>>
), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Steve DelBianco <br>
Executive Director <br>
NetChoice <br>
<a href="http://www.NetChoice.org">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org">
http://blog.netchoice.org</a> <br>
&#43;1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel<br>
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 <br>
(650) 669-8752 <<a href="https://www.google.com/voice#phones">https://www.google.com/voice#phones</a>><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>