[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question

[Bob Bruen]

Hi Stephanie,

It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a 
definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear 
to problematical.

The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, 
but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus 
taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to 
deal with problem domain names.

In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.

                       --bob

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

> I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding
> response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then
> how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a
> commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate
> the provision of goods and services over the Internet?  I don't like asking
> questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of.  Do the fraudsters we
> are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of
> incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate?  I operate in  a
> jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make.  THe
> determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain
> name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be
> done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit.  I am honestly
> not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this
> problem.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>
>       Jin and all
> I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier).  The important task here is
> agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs.  So we need to get
> back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that
> may be.  
> 
> So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still
> a useful question to ask.  The next question would be whether there are
> possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use
> the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree
> with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities
> that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the
> protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges
> come to mind).   But that is the sort of response we are seeking from
> others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers.  Let's only
> frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers.
>  Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
> 
> And my apologies for the next meeting.  I have a long day ahead on
> Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help.  So Ill read
> the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use
> the term)
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
>
>       Don and all,
>  
> As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group
> teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a
> consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to
> SO/ACs and SG/Cs.   
>  
> This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each
> group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group. 
>  
> In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps
> REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
>  
> And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague
> questions.
>  
> This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and
> encourage better responses. 
>  
> I hope these ideas are helpful.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Jim
>  
> James L. Bikoff
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
> 1101 30th Street, NW
> Suite 120
> Washington, DC 20007
> Tel: 202-944-3303
> Fax: 202-944-3306
> jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>  
>  
>  
> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>
> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST
> To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>       Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
>  
> “John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others
> might be extracted?  And where do we include/modify questions
> to address Stephanie's issue?"
>  
> Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be
> instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed
> organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has
> been that his document is a significant improvement over where
> we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline.
> However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest
> modifications. 
>  
> Don
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>       Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>       https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> 
> 
>

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288