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

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Apr 30 14:11:38 UTC 2015

But Mary, the questions could indeed be a bit less one-sided. We did 
also talk about a) the German law that requires identification of 
appropriate businesses and their locations (but not all organizations 
raising funds for any reason); b) the limited mandate and scope of 
ICANN; c) the difficulty of distinguishing across the spectrum and not 
treating a mom-owned home business like an Amazon.

It seems like a simple question into you dive into the complexities... 
and that's what I think Stephanie and I and others would like to shed 
light on -- even and especially in this Interim Report.


> To add to Stephanie’s note that this specific issue - whether 
> registrants of domain names actively used for commercial transactions 
> ought to be disallowed from using P/P services - had been discussed at 
> some length by the WG:
> Please note that this part of the Initial Report draws heavily on the 
> detailed WG template for Charter Category C that was the basis for the 
> WG’s deliberations on this topic. That template contains lengthy 
> descriptions of what had previously been termed the majority and 
> minority positions on the WG’s answer to this specific issue. As part 
> of the WG’s deliberations – which took place primarily between April 
> and June 2014 - the more specific formulation of “transactional” to 
> describe the sort of commercial (i.e. Involving financial 
> transactions) activities that were being discussed was included in the 
> language. All the templates and suggested formulations discussed by 
> the WG are recorded and published on the WG wiki.
> The WG ultimately agreed to retain the two positions in the Initial 
> Report and to revisit the question during its review of the public 
> comments received. As noted previously, the WG's views were presented 
> to the community in London in June 2014 and again in Los Angeles in 
> October 2014.
> Therefore, the three questions in Section 1.3.3 of the Executive 
> Summary _only_ go toward soliciting community input on this single 
> issue. They were not intended to represent a view of any “side” in the 
> WG with regard to this matter. If the WG prefers, we can add a 
> sentence to clarify and specify the reason for the questions in 
> Section 1.3.3. Fundamentally, the idea is that public comments will 
> facilitate the WG’s eventual resolution of this issue as part of its 
> preparation of the Final Report.
> We hope this reminder of the background is of assistance.
> Cheers
> Mary
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20
> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>, 
> James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net 
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>, Michele Blacknight 
> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>     James, prior to you joining the group, we had discussed this at
>     some length.  IN fact, I really thought that the many reasons why
>     sorting out the purpose of a registration is problematic had
>     buried this debate, but apparently not.  Some of the issues
>     raised, according to my recollection were the following:
>       * names are registered prior to decisions about content
>       * content changes over time
>       * most countries regulate e-commerce in some fashion, so that
>         website commercial activity does not have to be regulated by
>         ICANN
>       * ICANN should not be in the business of regulating content in
>         the first place (and sorting out who is extracting a material
>         consideration from a website in order to deny them the ability
>         to use a proxy registration is certainly a form of regulation)
>       * definitions of commercial activity vary widely around the world
>       * bad actors will not declare, registrars cannot police this matter
>       * criminal prosecution is not dependent on WHOIS information
>       * if this is really about the ability to detect market
>         information, ICANN should not be in the business of making
>         registrant information available for market purposes, it does
>         it for security and stability.
>       * contactability remains, regardless of which registrant info
>         appears in WHOIS
>     I am planning to reformulate these into questions to match the
>     questions on the other side, suggestions welcome.
>     Stephanie Perrin
>     On 2015-04-30 16:24, James Gannon wrote:
>>     I don’t see this as asking providers to enforce anything similar
>>     to other questions when registering a domain, it’s a
>>     self-reported assessment. All it does is add an additional branch
>>     to the decision tree for eligibility, which will already be there
>>     to determine eligibility due to the other reasons listed below.
>>     The registrant is asked will you be processing financial
>>     transactions.
>>     ·YesàWill you be using a 3^rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P.
>>     ·YesàWill you be using a 3^rd party>Yes>Eligible for P/P.
>>     I’m not asking registrars to enforce law but to see if a more
>>     finely grained eligibility process can be enacted. Or at least is
>>     there is public support for more granularity.
>>     -James
>>     *From:*Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com]
>>     *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:17 AM
>>     *To:* James Gannon; Graeme Bunton; PPSAI
>>     *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and
>>     Section 1.3.3
>>     James
>>     As a registrar or PP service provider how am I meant to assess this?
>>     It doesn’t scale
>>     Seriously.
>>     If, for example, there is an Irish operated website that is not
>>     complying with Irish law then it would be up to the ODCE
>>     (http://www.odce.ie/) to enforce whatever needs enforcing, as it
>>     would be up to the DPA to enforce any issues around data privacy
>>     etc., etc.,
>>     Attempting to force registrars and PP providers to make these
>>     kind of evaluations is not going to work.
>>     Issues like PCI-DSS compliance are matters that should be dealt
>>     with by the DPA and the banks.
>>     Forcing registrars and PP providers to start getting involved in
>>     that kind of assessment isn’t viable
>>     Regards
>>     Michele
>>     --
>>     Mr Michele Neylon
>>     Blacknight Solutions
>>     Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>     http://www.blacknight.host/
>>     http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>     http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
>>     http://www.technology.ie
>>     Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>>     Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>     Social: http://mneylon.social
>>     -------------------------------
>>     Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>>     Park,Sleaty
>>     Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>     *From: *James Gannon
>>     *Date: *Thursday 30 April 2015 07:45
>>     *To: *Graeme Bunton, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>     *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and
>>     Section 1.3.3
>>     I would personally like to see if there is public traction for
>>     distinguishing between sites directly processing financial
>>     truncations and sites who use 3^rd 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>
>>     [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
>>     *Graeme Bunton
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17 PM
>>     *To:* PPSAI
>>     *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?
>>     ---
>>     Thanks,
>>     Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>>     -- 
>>     _________________________
>>     Graeme Bunton
>>     Manager, Management Information Systems
>>     Manager, Public Policy
>>     Tucows Inc.
>>     PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>     Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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/20150430/8187bf47/attachment-0001.html>

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