[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Edits to Executive Summary
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Apr 28 02:37:33 UTC 2015
Hi All,
I think the Excerpt from the Executive Summary is very important as it
is likely to be what people read first – and then they will decide
whether or not to jump into our long report. To that end, I would like
to propose some edits for clarity, fairness and balance.
1. Page numbers – if we are publishing this as a stand alone
documentary, let’s add page numbers to make reading and editing
references easier.
2. Footnote 1 [as edited by Steve] and as already done in the main
Report, this text should be moved into the main body of the text.
It’s the key to the strange code of brackets that we use in the
Interim Report and everyone should see it…
3. Section 1.3.3, Specific topics on there is currently no consensus
within the WG, needs a lot of work. The issues we wrote about long
ago, in our initial draft of this Executive Summary, have been
updated and expanded – especially with all the work we have done on
Reveal since then!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Edits to 1.3.3.Given all of our work with Reveal since this
first Executive Summary was first published, I submit the following
changes to the Executive Summary (and as needed to correspond in the
Interim Report)
To opening of 1.3.3. after “Specific Topics on which there is currently
no consensus within the WG:”
[Add] The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key
details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim
Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the
WG has not reached consensus. These include:
-What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal
Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current
recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
-Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a
Reveal Request to a 3^rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt
reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid
unnecessary and potentially harassing and time-consuming appeals?(Note:
a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended
process the WG has agreed toby consensus.)
-What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged
to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for
maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or
trademark infringement allegation?
-How can Customers be protected from requests from Law Enforcement from
outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal
purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in
other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national
lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues
because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol
Constitution]
Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
In addition, [existing text] “[a]lthough the WG agreed that the mere
fact that a domain name is registered by a commercial entity or by
anyone conducting commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P
services[1] <#_ftn1>, there was disagreement over whether domain names
that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or
exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited from using P/P
services. While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is
necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants of such
domain names should not be able to use or continue using proxy or
privacy services. These members noted that businesses in the “offline
world” are often required to register with relevant authorities as well
as disclose details about their identities and locations. They expressed
the view that it is both necessary and practical to distinguish between
domains used for a commercial purpose (irrespective of whether the
registrant is actually registered as a commercial entity anywhere) and
those domains (which may be operated by commercial entity) that are used
for a non-commercial purpose.”
*/[add] /*//Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and
membership drives are often performed by the very groups and
organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection,
including minority political groups, minority religious organizations,
ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies,
gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of
expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the
laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership
fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial.
Further, many of these organizations conduct their financial
transactions through 3^rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal,
and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly.
Accordingly, many in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the
proxy/privacy of organizations and groups for this reason. They further
note many in the WG submit that content regulation is beyond the scope
of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws.
[existing] The WG chairs suggested that such domains might be more
usefully termed “transactional” rather than more generally “commercial”
domains. They developed the following suggested definition and potential
recommendation to describe the view of some WG members regarding these
transactional domains: /“domains used for online financial transactions
for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy
registrations.”/
*/[add] /*This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of
the WG and has not reached consensus. Input requested!
*/[I request the deletion of the rest of this section as too much detail
for an Executive Summary and detracting from the many open other issues
of the Executive Summary and Interim report.]/*
*//*
·Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial
activities and which are used for online financial transactions be
prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?
·Will it be useful to adopt a definition of “commercial” or
“transactional” (and if so, should this be that suggested by the WG
Chairs or some other)?
·Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to
be displayed as a result?]
Best,
Kathy
p.s. also attached as a word doc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1>The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically
acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate
interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
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/20150427/95731c51/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Edits to Executive Summary KK.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150427/95731c51/EditstoExecutiveSummaryKK-0001.doc>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list