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

Fri May 1 03:17:37 UTC 2015

We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement

>We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
>
>Kiran Malancharuvil
>Internet Policy Counselor
>MarkMonitor
>415-419-9138 (m)
>
>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
>On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman
><kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
>Follow LegitScript:
>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 WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details
>of its ³Reveal² 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 3rd 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][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 ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit²
>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 3rd 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: ³domains used for online
>financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for
>privacy and proxy registrations.²
>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?
>
>
>________________________________
>
>[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<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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150501/4b3c6289/smime-0001.p7s>