[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
John Horton
john.horton at legitscript.com
Mon Jan 20 13:47:26 UTC 2014
I think that Holly's point is a valid one: we're at the point of asking
questions and soliciting feedback, if I understand it correctly. While
there may be varying viewpoints in this group regarding the utility, wisdom
and ease of distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial entities
using P/P services, it seems to me that some of the input we may receive in
response to those questions could assist this group in better understanding
why such a distinction is either a) good policy and practical or b) bad
policy and unworkable. As a matter of process, however, I would agree that
it is appropriate and useful to solicit that feedback from external
entities at this juncture.
John Horton
President, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*:
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>
| Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> |
Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript>
| YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog
<http://blog.legitscript.com>* |
Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Bob Bruen <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties,
> not advocating a position.
>
> However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from
> using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that.
> The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to
> continue to control it simply continues the problem.
>
> The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
>
> --bob
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using
>> p/p services, however I am not sure it is the
>> sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a
>> blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to
>> legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
>>
>> In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it
>> accepts.
>>
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140120/244b3ece/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list