<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(68,68,68)"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Hi Kathy,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers <i>and</i> seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers <i>or</i> 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?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Thanks!</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">John Horton<br>President and CEO, LegitScript</font><div><br><div><div><p style="margin:0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;font:12.0px Helvetica"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica"><b><font color="#444444">Follow</font><font color="#0b5394"> </font><font color="#000000">Legit</font><font color="#0b5394">Script</font></b>: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com" style="font-weight:normal" target="_blank"><font color="#cc0000">LinkedIn</font></a> | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript" style="font-weight:normal" target="_blank"><font color="#6aa84f">Facebook</font></a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/legitscript" style="font-weight:normal" target="_blank"><font color="#674ea7">Twitter</font></a> | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript" style="font-weight:normal" target="_blank"><font color="#bf9000">YouTube</font></a> | <font color="#ff9900"><u><a href="http://blog.legitscript.com" target="_blank">Blog</a></u></font> |<font color="#ff9900"> <font style="font-weight:normal"><a href="https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts" target="_blank">Google+</a></font></font></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All,<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I include a pasted version below for easy reading.<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James
Gannon and Stephanie
Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, <b>Specific Topics on which
there is currently
no consensus within the WG</b>, of this PPSAI Executive
Summary and Interim
Report is incomplete.<span> </span>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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">1.3.3, <b>Specific
Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG</b> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">1.3.3.1 REVEAL<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">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: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri">-</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">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)? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri">-</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">Should Requestors be
allowed to
escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3<sup>rd</sup>
party
forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and
thresholds for
such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals?<span> </span>(Note: a Request for
Reconsideration is
already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to
by consensus.)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri">-</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri">-</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">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]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri"> Input and comments would be helpful
on these
issues. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF
INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL
LAW<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">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<a href="#14d0c268aac32126__ftn1" name="14d0c268aac32126__ftnref1" title=""><span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span><span><span>[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span><span style="font-family:Calibri">[1]</span></span>,
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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">While <b>most
WG members </b>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]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri">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. <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri">Further, many of
organizations, small
businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by
mothers and seniors)
conduct their financial transactions through 3<sup>rd</sup>
party e-commerce
companies, such as PayPal, and thus <i>are
not processing the financial transactions directly</i>.
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. <span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri">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).</span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri"> <b><u></u><u></u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">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.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">This
suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG
and has not
reached consensus as others submitted that: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:Calibri">"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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">Input requested on the full issues,
including
questions below:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri">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? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri">Is this type
of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and
the proper
province of national law?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div>
<p><a href="#14d0c268aac32126__ftnref1" name="14d0c268aac32126__ftn1" title=""></a><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">[1]</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>