[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Apr 30 23:18:22 UTC 2015

I will leave it to Kathy to respond,  John, except to say that 
unfortunately our typo edits crossed in the rush to get this out by the 
deadline last night.  A deadline is, I presume, a deadline, one does not 
get to put a new version in the next day.  (If I misunderstand ICANN 
procedures, I am hoping Mary will be helpful as always and enlighten me:)).
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-05-01 7:09, John Horton wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers 
> /and/ seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers /or/ seniors"? I 
> think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to 
> be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can 
> certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent 
> is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are 
> (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based 
> businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, 
> irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might 
> be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
> Thanks!
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
> *FollowLegitScript*: LinkedIn 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook 
> <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube 
> <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | _Blog 
> <http://blog.legitscript.com>_  |Google+ 
> <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>     Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All,
>     Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in
>     the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word
>     version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in
>     the published version.
>     I include a pasted version below for easy reading.
>     Best,
>     Kathy
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin,
>     Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>     We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, *Specific Topics
>     on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*, of this
>     PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete.There are
>     a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within
>     the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well
>     known and deeply discussed.
>     For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and
>     discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like
>     to see Section 1.3.3 written.
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus
>     within the WG*
>     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 time-consuming appeals?(Note: a Request for
>     Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the
>     WG has agreed to by 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 extraterritorial 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.
>     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[1]
>     <#14d0c268aac32126__ftn1>[1], 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. [1]
>     *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. Others noted that “non-profit”
>     status is limited to only a few countries. *
>     *Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based
>     businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) 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 members in the
>     WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of
>     organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. *
>     *Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far
>     beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws
>     – some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are
>     clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application
>     (e.g., Germany).*
>     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.”
>     This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG
>     and has not reached consensus as others submitted that:
>     "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain
>     registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining
>     eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly
>     discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small
>     businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of
>     freedom of expression rights on the Internet.
>     Input requested on the full issues, including questions below:
>     ·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?
>     ·Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and
>     mandate and the proper province of national law?
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     <#14d0c268aac32126__ftnref1>[1]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.
>     _______________________________________________
>     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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150501/bdbf797b/attachment-0001.html>

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