[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
Graeme Bunton
gbunton at tucows.com
Thu Apr 30 15:13:35 UTC 2015
Steve, myself and staff are discussing how to proceed while ensuring
that balance is maintained.
Thank you all for your contributions.
Graeme
On 2015-04-30 11:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> So let me get this very very clear, as i am new to the process.
> 1. The research report you offered was sent to the list.
> 2. It has never been part of the record.
> 3. You wish to see it added now, April 30th, 23:58 KST.
> 4, You are telling me I could have done the same thing.
> 5. I have Exactly how much time to submit a minority report in order
> to comply with the deadline of April 30th?
>
> Thanks for the clarifications.
> Stephanie
>
> On 2015-04-30 23:52, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
>> Stephanie,
>>
>> You had ample opportunity to prepare and present a white paper of
>> your own.
>>
>> It was not unsolicited, as at any time, members of the group are
>> welcome and encouraged to present their views on the matter under
>> discussion.
>>
>> Are you really saying that a well researched policy position and a
>> presentation of that research is NOT meant to be a part of the PDP
>> process? I really do not think that it the case.
>>
>> I know that you object to the position that the white paper explains,
>> but unless there is a concrete prohibition on linking to it (staff?)
>> it needs to be included, as we have every right to present the
>> complex legal argument behind our position.
>>
>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>> Internet Policy Counselor
>> MarkMonitor
>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>
>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> With great respect to Kiran and to the law firm that compiled the
>>> "white paper", I objected at the time and there was no indication
>>> that we accepted the white paper in our discussions, other than to
>>> say thanks. I would object strenuously to it being included. That
>>> was a totally unsolicited contribution from parties wishing to
>>> advance their case. You cannot attach that paper, without giving
>>> those on the other side an opportunity to counter it with another
>>> white paper. Frankly, the PDP process is not supposed to be about
>>> dualling unsolicited white papers. IF we need to have research
>>> done, we have to agree on what needs to be done if it is to be
>>> attached to the official call for comments. I don't wish to be
>>> ungracious, but the paper should not be added.
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>>> On 2015-04-30 23:34, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
>>>> It is a recommendation for a policy/best practice from a portion of
>>>> the group.
>>>>
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:33 AM, James Gannon
>>>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless we are suggesting that the whitepaper is consensus policy
>>>>> or best practice it does not fall under that category. We are
>>>>> presenting our policy recommendation already, which is the work
>>>>> product of the group
>>>>>
>>>>> -James
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>> [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:31 PM
>>>>> To: James Gannon
>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong; PPSAI
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section
>>>>> 1.3.3
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommendations for policies, guidelines, best practices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:29 AM, James Gannon
>>>>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting from the PDP Manual, there seems to be strong guidelines
>>>>>> of what goes out with the Initial Report:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After collection and review of information, the PDP Team and
>>>>>>> Staff are responsible for producing an Initial Report. The
>>>>>>> Initial Report should include the following elements:
>>>>>>> * Compilation of Stakeholder Group and Constituency Statements
>>>>>>> * Compilation of any statements received from any ICANN
>>>>>>> Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee
>>>>>>> * Recommendations for policies, guidelines, best practices or
>>>>>>> other proposals to address the issue
>>>>>>> * Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations
>>>>>>> presented in the Initial Report
>>>>>>> * Information regarding the members of the PDP Team, such as the
>>>>>>> attendance records, Statements of Interest, etc.
>>>>>>> * A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the
>>>>>>> proposed recommendations, could consider areas such as economic,
>>>>>>> competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability
>>>>>>> and feasibility
>>>>>> I don't see where in that framework the whitepaper would sit. I
>>>>>> would welcome others thoughts on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran
>>>>>> Malancharuvil
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:09 PM
>>>>>> To: Mary Wong
>>>>>> Cc: PPSAI
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section
>>>>>> 1.3.3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mary,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since one side of this issue prepared a lengthy legal review to
>>>>>> address this question, I would request that that white paper be
>>>>>> included in the reference materials for the public comment. Since
>>>>>> public comment is meant to "resolve" this issue, commenters need
>>>>>> all of the information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not just down to feasibility of self-declaration at
>>>>>> registration (which frankly, many of us see as a cop out since
>>>>>> it's already done in some TLDs), but also legality.
>>>>>> Not trying to re-open the debate, but please, let's make sure the
>>>>>> community understands the various points and the background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> K
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Mary Wong
>>>>>> <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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<mailto: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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd party>No>Not eligible for
>>>>>> P/P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd 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 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>
>>>>>> [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 accreditati
> on
>>>> 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.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
--
_________________________
Graeme Bunton
Manager, Management Information Systems
Manager, Public Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list