[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 17:30:04 UTC 2014
Hi Michele,
Yes, there is a difference between over-simplying a problem and breaking
down a problem. I know the difference. I also know about distractions
introduced to slow down solving a problem.
It just seemed to me that Registrars introduced the idea of private
registration and offer it as a service for a fee. Did I miss something?
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Bob
>
> There's a very clear difference between breaking a problem down into more manageable parts and over-simplifying it
>
> And I don't see why or how registrars "introduced this problem" - as a registrar I'm confused by that statement
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.co/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen at coldrain.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:42 PM
> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>
>
> Hi Michele,
>
> Well, it may or not be an intellectual exercise, but using one's intellect to solve a problem is the usual way to go. Reducing complex problems to simple parts is also a pretty standard approach.
>
> I fully expect this to end being a binding ICANN policy, which will affect operations. Keep in mind that Registrars introduced this problem, so this is just a consequence to be dealt with.
>
> --bob
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
>> Bob
>>
>> This is not an intellectual exercise. A binding ICANN policy will
>> impact operations, so by simplifying a complex problem you don't solve
>> anything. In fact you do the opposite
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Michele
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>> http://www.blacknight.co/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://www.technology.ie
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen at coldrain.net]
>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:26 PM
>> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Michele,
>>
>> I am well aware of how the world works. The attempt at simplification is to make the problem more managable, not to ignore the tough issues. It is a pretty standard way to attack problems.
>>
>> It is also a way to cut through the distractions presented by folks
>> with an agenda, that may include derailing a process :)
>>
>> --bob
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" -
>>> it's made up of varying shades of different colours
>>>
>>> You and others like to over simplify things.
>>>
>>> And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers
>>> please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Michele
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>> Blacknight Solutions
>>> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>>> http://www.blacknight.co/
>>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>> http://www.technology.ie
>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>>> -------------------------------
>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen
>>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM
>>> To: Kathy Kleiman
>>> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>>> From my point of view only:
>>>
>>> Individuals - not relevant because not commercial Non-Profit - not
>>> relevant because not commercial
>>>
>>> Commercial with reasons - These reasons in general are temporary and create a limited use class.
>>>
>>>> From my experience (and others) these uses make up a small number of the whole p/p group.
>>>
>>> --bob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> The Whois Review Team did find legitimate use cases for commercial
>>>> access to proxy/privacy services -- based in large part on a candid
>>>> discussion with commercial communities in ICANN about how they use
>>>> proxy/privacy services, including when they are launching a new
>>>> business, naming a new good or service (get the cool domain name
>>>> then develop the marketing campaign, then unveil it), not disclosing a merger before its time (to avoid reflections on stock prices), not disclosing a movie name before its time (this happened to great embarrassment and now attorneys and p/p service providers are used until it is time to unveil the movie's promotional campaign).
>>>>
>>>> Please see Recommendation 10 of the Whois Review Team report, which includes:
>>>>
>>>> "Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>> Findings
>>>>
>>>> Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum.
>>>> These services are clearly meeting a market demand, and it is equally clear that these services are complicating the WHOIS landscape.
>>>>
>>>> Privacy and proxy services are used to address noncommercial and
>>>> commercial interests, which many view as legitimate. For example,
>>>>
>>>> Individuals – who prefer not to have their personal data published
>>>> on the Internet as part of a WHOIS record; Organizations – as
>>>> religious, political or ethnic minority, or sharing controversial moral or sexual information; and Companies – for upcoming mergers, new product or service names, new movie names, or other product launches."
>>>>
>>>> Please see the full Recommendation 10 at ---
>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-
>>>> e
>>>> n
>>>> .pdf
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kathy
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> James Bladel wrote -----
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Robert Bruen
>> Cold Rain Labs
>> http://coldrain.net/bruen
>> +1.802.579.6288
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Robert Bruen
> Cold Rain Labs
> http://coldrain.net/bruen
> +1.802.579.6288
>
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list