[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Mon Jan 20 14:41:41 UTC 2014
I disagree with any proposal to create ³categories² or ³classes² of
registrants, with limited or restricted privileges. Specifically:
‹How would P/P services detect/enforce the correct Class? Particularly
given that bad actors will do what they always do, and just lie.
‹How would we address edge cases, such as sole proprietors, or aspirant
entrepreneurs? Are political campaigns, individual candidates, or
churches seeking donations considered ³commercial² users?
‹What other current (and future) ICANN policies would be bifurcated and
applied differently to different Classes? Should there also be a process
to upgrade/downgrade a Registrant post-registration?
‹ And finally, I do not agree with the blanket (and unsupported)
contention that all commercial users of P/P services are causing ³harms.²
In fact, the WHOIS Review Team and other groups have clearly articulated
several legitimate use cases for commercial access to these services.
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 7:10 , "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 shouldn¹t wait a week:
>>
>> ³John 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
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list