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

Prosser, Susan susan at domaintools.com
Fri May 1 16:12:05 UTC 2015 

DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement
as well.

-Susan


On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank at domaincocoon.com>
wrote:

> Kiran,
>
> I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time
> restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his
> company name to the list.
>
> If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval,
> maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that
> support/worded the statement.
>
> So far we've got:
>
> * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor
> * Legitscript
>
> I do think that any statement included with this report should be
> attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the
> background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are
> not clearly attributable, could  potentially weigh less in the eye of
> the reader.
>
> @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a
> statement after its submission?
>
> Best regards,
> /Frank
> --
> Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
>
> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
> > They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
> >
> > Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but
> companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we
> are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
> >
> > If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go
> back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
> >
> > K
> >
> > Kiran Malancharuvil
> > Internet Policy Counselor
> > MarkMonitor
> > 415-419-9138 (m)
> >
> > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> >
> >> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
> michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kiran
> >>
> >> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be
> referenced?
> >>
> >> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
> >>
> >> 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
> >> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish
> >> -------------------------------
> >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> Park,Sleaty
> >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <
> Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement
> as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and
> as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the
> transactional distinction.
> >>>
> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil
> >>> Internet Policy Counselor
> >>> MarkMonitor
> >>> 415-419-9138 (m)
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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:
> >>>>> EURO        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?
> >>>>> EURO        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
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150501/043d2a2a/attachment-0001.html>

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