[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
Graeme Bunton
gbunton at tucows.com
Thu Apr 30 16:06:55 UTC 2015
Good suggestions, Steve.
Thank you,
Graeme
On 2015-04-30 11:58 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> Perhaps a simpler way to accomplish this would be to insert the
> following at the end of the first bullet:
>
> “If so, why, and if not, why not?”
>
> We could then introduce the next two questions with “If so,” and
> change “will” to “would” as Stephanie suggests.
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie
> Perrin
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:23 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org; Mary Wong
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>
> Thanks Mary, very helpful. Returning to the original text, I offer
> the following suggestions:
>
> 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] *you agree with this position, do you think it
> would* 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} *Would *it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS
> data fields to be displayed as a result? (this question is not
> clear, in my view, it needs more detail on the nature of the
> distinction, the data fields we are talking about, and to what
> does "as a result" refer? As a result of the decision to deny
> privacy proxy services???)
>
> The use of the word "will" here appears to imply agreement with the
> text, you need the conditional. Then you need to seek clarification
> on the other side:
>
> * If you disagree with the proposal to deny the use of privacy and
> proxy services to domain names associated with commercial
> activities and which are used for online financial transactions,
> what are the reasons for your rejection of this proposal?
>
>
> Kind regards as always,
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2015-04-30 22:54, Mary Wong 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.
>
> ·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/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDKActStEmX7ndjfqnEIgUMkdhXCAGe_aALVo69T0irIiCOftGW0RRkFeeJXP_SQ_bxxN5c9ZWrJzjnfSpDUeI4UjuT2dsrtgXox-JsiUyGsBvbDhSHcf2gH3gqSI2YwvUnORJuOhanPP2uCSQp3bey2BqQKbirhovyP6hDiunUi2Ilg>) 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/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh-J4kMLvQtMGZn5lKnoQO8ikZnQiTNL6FLbYD67s4dF-tWj2IbgtPVbZIrmLhFiT8cZvRoXUKLem6cyG8n3JE6-tis8tEkBPwKkOuqFU7azbPzFSZPBE0XjNt1o6W5MAy5yWOEr-3QLGcTYMC5oDDDwuftYuz9pHDOyvEieReE36N1UxTeWXBI__3g1_xmHN4S0>
>
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wVhCgpAj6NRi9Y8zMxa9MvTN2vhD-EWNpvAhObo3t9Jl-Kh7ki557bXwOMPGhz-Up4X8e1Q8UR-DF0d4jYhrGpb0LrotD50UduC3QQRYUJ24nEnbyayh-GPs3hk77LhEpDwYrSf4v_RqmohacWFuO-pMc6Ap8I9JulleUf0h9FbW-MHMc1xlq8F7WXPVnekaa_Tg>
>
> http://www.blacknight.press
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFnhsCzIT83jwX24BSxN_VMtJYpUgkSGF-Qst71LuBVQLY87bs-vewJiEDX8p5ABHKofJc69pmthPRFaowH9cz7b4wBdr45nD9yW3n5wmmAGAorNORPO2oD8fx1b7Ch4UucRtocG7TVoD8q8xePkXjqmELFjL3powas7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk>
> - get our latest news & media coverage
>
> http://www.technology.ie
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-Fmr9Q1_uNxFISl4UXNQGJAa4ABDSoMKKJoH4LBI6dPDpw1IcPIW2UD6KmY-khZffkUgGyGTLPU0VW-nWld8z7P0H2Ru_lA2gyfCIuoaN7WmFU6IRQ9AVVBKNMpsRsxQkxp27qp4b1vr0Nu7xAxlXjinmqCYcWDyv6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc>
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbdh-ZFyKYiMOesCOSW0IbP_Hk74wcQMPR4LFdtPIo3qwpdVxkGjxnPEF73YlWOioKWfm0ASY6v7enF3zKmqddqH2G4dXIbPg_PVqGwzzZzhWQxKSK2MKPyc4QXazyYJjS7H_X2JdIq2B8eAZeCDmgPBWH09Ix-VujUi5pHJeE_GXWIlFrE4TTH0hP08WIPWYQvhY>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> 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.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/d3534b65/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list