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

Sat May 2 17:48:44 UTC 2015

It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.

Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their
representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?

J.

On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:

>James/Mary/Staff,
>
>Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various
>constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
>
>There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such
>(e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through
>individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance)
>and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a
>representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a
>single representative, corporations who are members as a business,
>membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
>
>Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are
>stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual
>names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
>
>Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>Kiran Malancharuvil
>Internet Policy Counselor
>MarkMonitor
>415-419-9138 (m)
>
>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
>On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel
><jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>
>Mary/Staff -
>
>These message are inconsistent.  Please confirm: Are we listing the names
>of individuals, or companies?
>
>J.
>
>
>From: Kiran Malancharuvil
><Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonito
>r.com>>
>Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25
>To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com>>, "Prosser,
>Susan" <susan at domaintools.com<mailto:susan at domaintools.com>>, Frank
>Michlick <frank at domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank at domaincocoon.com>>,
>"mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>"
><mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>Cc: PPSAI WG 
><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>
>Mary,
>
>Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith,
>Gambrell and Russell to the statement?  Please retain “on behalf of the
>proponents of the transactional distinction.”
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kiran
>
>From: Kiran Malancharuvil
>Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM
>To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick;
>mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>
>Fantastic.  Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript,
>DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not
>individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional
>distinction.”
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kiran
>
>From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@
>icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>Susan Kawaguchi
>Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM
>To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick
>Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>
>Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement
>Susan Kawaguchi
>Domain Name Manager
>Facebook Legal Dept.
>
>Phone - 650 485-6064
>
>From: <Prosser>, Susan
><susan at domaintools.com<mailto:susan at domaintools.com>>
>Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM
>To: Frank Michlick <frank at domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank at domaincocoon.com>>
>Cc: "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>>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>
>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<mailto: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<tel: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090>
>>> 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<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmon
>>>>itor.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<tel: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892>
>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>><Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmo
>>>>>nitor.com>>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30
>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman
>>>>><kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>>> Cc: 
>>>>>"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>>
>>>>> 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<tel: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><mailto:kathy at k
>>>>>>athykleiman.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_U
>>>>>>se_-_
>>>>>> 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><mailto:kathy at k
>>>>>>athykleiman.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><mailt
>>>>>>o: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><mailt
>>>>>>o: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<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<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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg