[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Thu Apr 30 06:45:16 UTC 2015

I would personally like to see if there is public traction for distinguishing between sites directly processing financial truncations and sites who use 3rd parties for processing financial transactions as this is a very important distinction. A simple and I hope non-controversial additional question to the ones below:
If so, should domains which use a third party to process financial transactions (i.e Paypal, Stripe), and thus do not directly process financial information, be subject to the same restrictions?
There are strong existing distinctions both in national laws and in regulations such as PCI-DSS between these two forms.

-James Gannon
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme Bunton
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17 PM
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3

Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call.

Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we recognize there is considerable support for extending the public comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we have all been planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but with the caveat that this will have repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work once public comments have been received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and August, some of which may need to be more than an hour in length, to review these comments and move toward a Final Report.  Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many additional steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final Report before any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of next year is already real.

Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for public comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no later than Thursday, April 30.

Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We agree that this section could benefit from some revision, but believe it should take the form of greater concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the divergent positions.  Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows:

Although 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 , 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.

For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the following text was proposed to clarify and define their position: “domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.”

Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following questions:

  *   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?
  *   If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of “commercial” or “transactional” to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what should the definition(s) be?”
  *   Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result?

Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz



Graeme Bunton

Manager, Management Information Systems

Manager, Public Policy

Tucows Inc.

PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/87002220/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list