[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement

Fri May 1 02:24:31 UTC 2015

Hi John,
Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."

What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement 
which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting 
input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. /*

*Steve, Graeme and Mary,
/I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore 
desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement 
desire public comment..."
      (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public 
comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS 
data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial 
activity and provides the above-referenced white paper 
<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf>as 
background for consideration."
We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the 
main report.

Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks 
only for its group.
Tx,
Kathy
:
> 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*
>
>     1.3.3.1 REVEAL
>
>     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.
>
>     1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW
>
>     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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/e91b71cf/attachment-0001.html>