[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jan 20 16:17:36 UTC 2014
Thanks Maria, you have restated my point far more eloquently, and with evidence!
This whole discussion causes me to suggest again, that using the working group process to do risk assessment and quasi-regulatory impact assessment (which is basically what we are doing as we debate these questions) seems to beg a better framework. We need to understand the potential impacts of what we do...including asking the questions. We don't want to be asking leading questions, we want to be seeking evidence.
Stephanie
On 2014-01-20, at 6:34 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Stephanie is not talking about 'exceptions' but rather a fundamental difficulty with defining what is commercial, and that is simply within her jurisdiction. Outside of Canada or common law jurisdictions, it gets even harder. For instance, on my work trips to various ICT projects in developing countries, the distinctions between commercial and noncommercial that seem plain to some just don't hold up; many ICT initiatives are part-commercial and part nonprofit because it's the only way they can survive. Even, sometimes, the human rights activists.
>
> As Stephanie points out there is a dearth of actual arguments in favour of the blanket assumption against 'commercial' enterprises accessing p/p. I, also, would like to hear the rationale for barring commercial entities from p/p, particularly given efforts to define 'commercial' as broadly as possible, even, in some quarters, to personal blogs that have tip jars or include advertising. So far, nothing I've seen has convinced me that the bid to exclude so-called commercial websites is a first principles objection so much as an attempt to exclude the biggest number of domain names possible.
>
> I also fail to see how ICANN can police this without getting into content, which is explicitly and for very good reason beyond our mandate.
>
> I would like to see on this mailing list and our phone calls some evidence-based and logically sound arguments for what is currently being claimed as an unproblematic assumption. I would also like to see a good faith willingness to engage with the difficulty of actually implementing such a distinction, if it were to be made.
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 20 January 2014 09:53, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140120/6c193ced/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list