<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree, very sensible, assuming this means you will withdraw the
proposed ancillary questions which have kicked off this debate.<br>
Kind regards<br>
Stephanie<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-05-01 0:42, James Gannon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DB5PR06MB12853E9FDD1BEB98D4EAB757BFD60@DB5PR06MB1285.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">That
seems like a logical compromise between both sides, it has
my full support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">-James<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Metalitz, Steven<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Graeme Bunton'; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment
Period and Section 1.3.3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Graeme
and I have asked staff to insert a footnote in this section,
providing links to the extensive discussions of the topic in
WG meetings (telephonic and face to face) and on the mailing
list, as background for the public. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Graeme Bunton<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment
Period and Section 1.3.3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve, myself and staff are discussing how
to proceed while ensuring
<br>
that balance is maintained.<br>
Thank you all for your contributions.<br>
<br>
Graeme<br>
On 2015-04-30 11:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
> So let me get this very very clear, as i am new to the
process.<br>
> 1. The research report you offered was sent to the list.<br>
> 2. It has never been part of the record.<br>
> 3. You wish to see it added now, April 30th, 23:58 KST.<br>
> 4, You are telling me I could have done the same thing.<br>
> 5. I have Exactly how much time to submit a minority
report in order <br>
> to comply with the deadline of April 30th?<br>
><br>
> Thanks for the clarifications.<br>
> Stephanie<br>
><br>
> On 2015-04-30 23:52, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:<br>
>> Stephanie,<br>
>><br>
>> You had ample opportunity to prepare and present a
white paper of <br>
>> your own.<br>
>><br>
>> It was not unsolicited, as at any time, members of
the group are <br>
>> welcome and encouraged to present their views on the
matter under <br>
>> discussion.<br>
>><br>
>> Are you really saying that a well researched policy
position and a <br>
>> presentation of that research is NOT meant to be a
part of the PDP <br>
>> process? I really do not think that it the case.<br>
>><br>
>> I know that you object to the position that the white
paper explains, <br>
>> but unless there is a concrete prohibition on linking
to it (staff?) <br>
>> it needs to be included, as we have every right to
present the <br>
>> complex legal argument behind our position.<br>
>><br>
>> Kiran Malancharuvil<br>
>> Internet Policy Counselor<br>
>> MarkMonitor<br>
>> 415-419-9138 (m)<br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.<br>
>><br>
>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin <br>
>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> With great respect to Kiran and to the law firm
that compiled the <br>
>>> "white paper", I objected at the time and there
was no indication <br>
>>> that we accepted the white paper in our
discussions, other than to <br>
>>> say thanks. I would object strenuously to it
being included. That <br>
>>> was a totally unsolicited contribution from
parties wishing to <br>
>>> advance their case. You cannot attach that paper,
without giving <br>
>>> those on the other side an opportunity to counter
it with another <br>
>>> white paper. Frankly, the PDP process is not
supposed to be about <br>
>>> dualling unsolicited white papers. IF we need to
have research <br>
>>> done, we have to agree on what needs to be done
if it is to be <br>
>>> attached to the official call for comments. I
don't wish to be <br>
>>> ungracious, but the paper should not be added.<br>
>>> Stephanie Perrin<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 2015-04-30 23:34, Kiran Malancharuvil
wrote:<br>
>>>> It is a recommendation for a policy/best
practice from a portion of <br>
>>>> the group.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> K<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil<br>
>>>> Internet Policy Counselor<br>
>>>> MarkMonitor<br>
>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:33 AM, James Gannon
<br>
>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Unless we are suggesting that the
whitepaper is consensus policy <br>
>>>>> or best practice it does not fall under
that category. We are <br>
>>>>> presenting our policy recommendation
already, which is the work <br>
>>>>> product of the group<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -James<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil <br>
>>>>> [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com">mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com</a>]<br>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:31 PM<br>
>>>>> To: James Gannon<br>
>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong; PPSAI<br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI
Comment Period and Section <br>
>>>>> 1.3.3<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Recommendations for policies, guidelines,
best practices.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil<br>
>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor<br>
>>>>> MarkMonitor<br>
>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any
typos.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:29 AM, James
Gannon <br>
>>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Quoting from the PDP Manual, there
seems to be strong guidelines <br>
>>>>>> of what goes out with the Initial
Report:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> After collection and review of
information, the PDP Team and <br>
>>>>>>> Staff are responsible for
producing an Initial Report. The <br>
>>>>>>> Initial Report should include the
following elements:<br>
>>>>>>> * Compilation of Stakeholder
Group and Constituency Statements<br>
>>>>>>> * Compilation of any statements
received from any ICANN <br>
>>>>>>> Supporting Organization or
Advisory Committee<br>
>>>>>>> * Recommendations for policies,
guidelines, best practices or <br>
>>>>>>> other proposals to address the
issue<br>
>>>>>>> * Statement of level of consensus
for the recommendations <br>
>>>>>>> presented in the Initial Report<br>
>>>>>>> * Information regarding the
members of the PDP Team, such as the <br>
>>>>>>> attendance records, Statements of
Interest, etc.<br>
>>>>>>> * A statement on the WG
discussion concerning impact of the <br>
>>>>>>> proposed recommendations, could
consider areas such as economic, <br>
>>>>>>> competition, operations, privacy
and other rights, scalability <br>
>>>>>>> and feasibility<br>
>>>>>> I don't see where in that framework
the whitepaper would sit. I <br>
>>>>>> would welcome others thoughts on
this.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -James<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>>> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
<br>
>>>>>> [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Kiran
<br>
>>>>>> Malancharuvil<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:09
PM<br>
>>>>>> To: Mary Wong<br>
>>>>>> Cc: PPSAI<br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
PPSAI Comment Period and Section <br>
>>>>>> 1.3.3<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Mary,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Since one side of this issue prepared
a lengthy legal review to <br>
>>>>>> address this question, I would
request that that white paper be <br>
>>>>>> included in the reference materials
for the public comment. Since <br>
>>>>>> public comment is meant to "resolve"
this issue, commenters need <br>
>>>>>> all of the information.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It's not just down to feasibility of
self-declaration at <br>
>>>>>> registration (which frankly, many of
us see as a cop out since <br>
>>>>>> it's already done in some TLDs), but
also legality.<br>
>>>>>> Not trying to re-open the debate, but
please, let's make sure the <br>
>>>>>> community understands the various
points and the background.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> K<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil<br>
>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor<br>
>>>>>> MarkMonitor<br>
>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse
any typos.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Mary
Wong <br>
>>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> To add to Stephanie's note that this
specific issue - whether <br>
>>>>>> registrants of domain names actively
used for commercial <br>
>>>>>> transactions ought to be disallowed
from using P/P services - had <br>
>>>>>> been discussed at some length by the
WG:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Please note that this part of the
Initial Report draws heavily on <br>
>>>>>> the detailed WG template for Charter
Category C that was the <br>
>>>>>> basis for the WG's deliberations on
this topic. That template <br>
>>>>>> contains lengthy descriptions of what
had previously been termed <br>
>>>>>> the majority and minority positions
on the WG's answer to this <br>
>>>>>> specific issue. As part of the WG's
deliberations - which took <br>
>>>>>> place primarily between April and
June 2014 - the more specific <br>
>>>>>> formulation of "transactional" to
describe the sort of commercial <br>
>>>>>> (i.e. Involving financial
transactions) activities that were <br>
>>>>>> being discussed was included in the
language. All the templates <br>
>>>>>> and suggested formulations discussed
by the WG are recorded and <br>
>>>>>> published on the WG wiki.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> The WG ultimately agreed to retain
the two positions in the <br>
>>>>>> Initial Report and to revisit the
question during its review of <br>
>>>>>> the public comments received. As
noted previously, the WG's views <br>
>>>>>> were presented to the community in
London in June 2014 and again <br>
>>>>>> in Los Angeles in October 2014.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Therefore, the three questions in
Section 1.3.3 of the Executive <br>
>>>>>> Summary only go toward soliciting
community input on this single <br>
>>>>>> issue. They were not intended to
represent a view of any "side" <br>
>>>>>> in the WG with regard to this matter.
If the WG prefers, we can <br>
>>>>>> add a sentence to clarify and specify
the reason for the <br>
>>>>>> questions in Section 1.3.3.
Fundamentally, the idea is that <br>
>>>>>> public comments will facilitate the
WG's eventual resolution of <br>
>>>>>> this issue as part of its preparation
of the Final Report.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We hope this reminder of the
background is of assistance.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>>>> Mary<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Mary Wong<br>
>>>>>> Senior Policy Director<br>
>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names & Numbers (ICANN)<br>
>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892<br>
>>>>>> Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin <br>
>>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>><br>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at
09:20<br>
>>>>>> To: <br>
>>>>>> "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org></a>"
<br>
>>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>>>,
James
<br>
>>>>>> Gannon <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net</a>>>,
<br>
>>>>>> Michele Blacknight <br>
>>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com">michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com</a>>><br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
PPSAI Comment Period and Section <br>
>>>>>> 1.3.3<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> James, prior to you joining the
group, we had discussed this at <br>
>>>>>> some length. IN fact, I really
thought that the many reasons why <br>
>>>>>> sorting out the purpose of a
registration is problematic had <br>
>>>>>> buried this debate, but apparently
not. Some of the issues <br>
>>>>>> raised, according to my recollection
were the following:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> * names are registered prior to
decisions about content<br>
>>>>>> * content changes over time<br>
>>>>>> * most countries regulate e-commerce
in some fashion, so that <br>
>>>>>> website commercial activity does not
have to be regulated by ICANN<br>
>>>>>> * ICANN should not be in the business
of regulating content in <br>
>>>>>> the first place (and sorting out who
is extracting a material <br>
>>>>>> consideration from a website in order
to deny them the ability to <br>
>>>>>> use a proxy registration is certainly
a form of regulation)<br>
>>>>>> * definitions of commercial activity
vary widely around the world<br>
>>>>>> * bad actors will not declare,
registrars cannot police this <br>
>>>>>> matter<br>
>>>>>> * criminal prosecution is not
dependent on WHOIS information<br>
>>>>>> * if this is really about the ability
to detect market <br>
>>>>>> information, ICANN should not be in
the business of making <br>
>>>>>> registrant information available for
market purposes, it does it <br>
>>>>>> for security and stability.<br>
>>>>>> * contactability remains, regardless
of which registrant info <br>
>>>>>> appears in WHOIS<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I am planning to reformulate these
into questions to match the <br>
>>>>>> questions on the other side,
suggestions welcome.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin<br>
>>>>>> On 2015-04-30 16:24, James Gannon
wrote:<br>
>>>>>> I don't see this as asking providers
to enforce anything similar <br>
>>>>>> to other questions when registering a
domain, it's a <br>
>>>>>> self-reported assessment. All it does
is add an additional branch <br>
>>>>>> to the decision tree for eligibility,
which will already be there <br>
>>>>>> to determine eligibility due to the
other reasons listed below.<br>
>>>>>> The registrant is asked will you be
processing financial <br>
>>>>>> transactions.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd
party>No>Not eligible for <br>
>>>>>> P/P.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd
party>Yes>Eligible for P/P.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I'm not asking registrars to enforce
law but to see if a more <br>
>>>>>> finely grained eligibility process
can be enacted. Or at least is <br>
>>>>>> there is public support for more
granularity.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -James<br>
>>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com">mailto:michele@blacknight.com</a>]<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:17
AM<br>
>>>>>> To: James Gannon; Graeme Bunton;
PPSAI<br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
PPSAI Comment Period and Section <br>
>>>>>> 1.3.3<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> James<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> As a registrar or PP service provider
how am I meant to assess this?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It doesn't scale<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Seriously.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> If, for example, there is an Irish
operated website that is not <br>
>>>>>> complying with Irish law then it
would be up to the ODCE <br>
>>>>>> (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDKActStEmX7ndjfqnEIgUMkdhXCAGe_aALVo69T0irIiCOftGW0RRkFeeJXP_SQ_bxxN5c9ZWrJzjnfSpDUeI4UjuT2dsrtgXox-JsiUyGsBvbDhSHcf2gH3gqSI2YwvUnORJuOhanPP2uCSQp3bey2BqQKbirhovyP6hDiunUi2Ilg">http://www.odce.ie/</a>)
to enforce whatever needs enforcing, as it <br>
>>>>>> would be up to the DPA to enforce any
issues around data privacy <br>
>>>>>> etc., etc.,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Attempting to force registrars and PP
providers to make these <br>
>>>>>> kind of evaluations is not going to
work.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Issues like PCI-DSS compliance are
matters that should be dealt <br>
>>>>>> with by the DPA and the banks.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Forcing registrars and PP providers
to start getting involved in <br>
>>>>>> that kind of assessment isn't viable<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Regards<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Michele<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon<br>
>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions<br>
>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains<br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh-J4kMLvQtMGZn5lKnoQO8ikZnQiTNL6FLbYD67s4dF-tWj2IbgtPVbZIrmLhFiT8cZvRoXUKLem6cyG8n3JE6-tis8tEkBPwKkOuqFU7azbPzFSZPBE0XjNt1o6W5MAy5yWOEr-3QLGcTYMC5oDDDwuftYuz9pHDOyvEieReE36N1UxTeWXBI__3g1_xmHN4S0">http://www.blacknight.host/</a><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wVhCgpAj6NRi9Y8zMxa9MvTN2vhD-EWNpvAhObo3t9Jl-Kh7ki557bXwOMPGhz-Up4X8e1Q8UR-DF0d4jYhrGpb0LrotD50UduC3QQRYUJ24nEnbyayh-GPs3hk77LhEpDwYrSf4v_RqmohacWFuO-pMc6Ap8I9JulleUf0h9FbW-MHMc1xlq8F7WXPVnekaa_Tg">http://blog.blacknight.com/</a><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFnhsCzIT83jwX24BSxN_VMtJYpUgkSGF-Qst71LuBVQLY87bs-vewJiEDX8p5ABHKofJc69pmthPRFaowH9cz7b4wBdr45nD9yW3n5wmmAGAorNORPO2oD8fx1b7Ch4UucRtocG7TVoD8q8xePkXjqmELFjL3powas7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk">http://www.blacknight.press</a>
- get our latest news & media <br>
>>>>>> coverage <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-Fmr9Q1_uNxFISl4UXNQGJAa4ABDSoMKKJoH4LBI6dPDpw1IcPIW2UD6KmY-khZffkUgGyGTLPU0VW-nWld8z7P0H2Ru_lA2gyfCIuoaN7WmFU6IRQ9AVVBKNMpsRsxQkxp27qp4b1vr0Nu7xAxlXjinmqCYcWDyv6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc">http://www.technology.ie</a>
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <br>
>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<br>
>>>>>> Social: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbdh-ZFyKYiMOesCOSW0IbP_Hk74wcQMPR4LFdtPIo3qwpdVxkGjxnPEF73YlWOioKWfm0ASY6v7enF3zKmqddqH2G4dXIbPg_PVqGwzzZzhWQxKSK2MKPyc4QXazyYJjS7H_X2JdIq2B8eAZeCDmgPBWH09Ix-VujUi5pHJeE_GXWIlFrE4TTH0hP08WIPWYQvhY">http://mneylon.social</a><br>
>>>>>> -------------------------------<br>
>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd,
Unit 12A,Barrowside Business <br>
>>>>>> Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> From: James Gannon<br>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday 30 April 2015 07:45<br>
>>>>>> To: Graeme Bunton, <br>
>>>>>> "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org></a>"<br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
PPSAI Comment Period and Section <br>
>>>>>> 1.3.3<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I would personally like to see if
there is public traction for <br>
>>>>>> distinguishing between sites directly
processing financial <br>
>>>>>> truncations and sites who use 3rd
parties for processing <br>
>>>>>> financial transactions as this is a
very important distinction. A <br>
>>>>>> simple and I hope non-controversial
additional question to the <br>
>>>>>> ones below:<br>
>>>>>> If so, should domains which use a
third party to process <br>
>>>>>> financial transactions (i.e Paypal,
Stripe), and thus do not <br>
>>>>>> directly process financial
information, be subject to the same <br>
>>>>>> restrictions?<br>
>>>>>> There are strong existing
distinctions both in national laws and <br>
>>>>>> in regulations such as PCI-DSS
between these two forms.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -James Gannon<br>
>>>>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<br>
>>>>>> [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Graeme
<br>
>>>>>> Bunton<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17
PM<br>
>>>>>> To: PPSAI<br>
>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI
Comment Period and Section 1.3.3<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thanks to all WG members for a very
productive call earlier <br>
>>>>>> today(and to Steve for his chairing
acumen). The co-chairs and <br>
>>>>>> staff met this afternoon to tie down
two loose ends from the call.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Regarding the deadline for public
comments on the Initial Report, <br>
>>>>>> we recognize there is considerable
support for extending the <br>
>>>>>> public comment period to 60 days
instead of the standard 40 days <br>
>>>>>> on which we have all been planning.
We are prepared to agree to <br>
>>>>>> this, but with the caveat that this
will have repercussions on <br>
>>>>>> the pace and intensity of our work
once public comments have been <br>
>>>>>> received. Specifically, if the public
comment deadline is <br>
>>>>>> extended until July 3 (60 days after
our publication date of May <br>
>>>>>> 4), we will need to plan on at least
weekly calls throughout July <br>
>>>>>> and August, some of which may need to
be more than an hour in <br>
>>>>>> length, to review these comments and
move toward a Final Report. <br>
>>>>>> Otherwise, we jeopardize the
prospects for getting the Final <br>
>>>>>> Report in front of the GNSO council
no later than the Dublin <br>
>>>>>> ICANN meeting. As was noted on the
call today, many additional <br>
>>>>>> steps need to take place even after
this WG issues its Final <br>
>>>>>> Report before any new accreditati<br>
> on<br>
>>>> system can be implemented, so the time
pressure imposed by the <br>
>>>> expiration of the Interim Specification at
the end of next year is <br>
>>>> already real.<br>
>>>>>> Also, as previously announced over
the past few weeks, if any WG <br>
>>>>>> members (or group of members) wish to
submit a brief separate or <br>
>>>>>> additional statement for inclusion in
the package posted for <br>
>>>>>> public comment next Monday, such
statements need to be received <br>
>>>>>> by staff no later than Thursday,
April 30.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Lastly, the other loose end involves
proposed revisions to <br>
>>>>>> section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report,
which were presented on the <br>
>>>>>> call earlier today but which we did
not have time to discuss <br>
>>>>>> fully. We agree that this section
could benefit from some <br>
>>>>>> revision, but believe it should take
the form of greater <br>
>>>>>> concision, not additional
presentation of arguments for the <br>
>>>>>> divergent positions. Thus we suggest
that section 1.3.3 be <br>
>>>>>> revised to read as follows:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> ---<br>
>>>>>> Although the WG agreed that the mere
fact that a domain name is <br>
>>>>>> registered by a commercial entity or
by anyone conducting <br>
>>>>>> commercial activity should not
preclude the use of P/P services , <br>
>>>>>> there was disagreement over whether
domain names that are <br>
>>>>>> actively used for commercial
transactions (e.g. the sale or <br>
>>>>>> exchange of goods or services) should
be prohibited from using <br>
>>>>>> P/P services. While most WG members
did not believe such a <br>
>>>>>> prohibition is necessary or
practical, some members believed that <br>
>>>>>> registrants of such domain names
should not be able to use or <br>
>>>>>> continue using proxy or privacy
services.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> For those that argued that it is
necessary and practical to limit <br>
>>>>>> access to P/P services to exclude
commercial entities, the <br>
>>>>>> following text was proposed to
clarify and define their position: <br>
>>>>>> "domains used for online financial
transactions for commercial <br>
>>>>>> purpose should be ineligible for
privacy and proxy registrations."<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Public comment is therefore
specifically invited on the following <br>
>>>>>> questions:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> * Should registrants of domain names
associated with commercial <br>
>>>>>> activities and which are used for
online financial transactions <br>
>>>>>> be prohibited from using, or
continuing to use, privacy and proxy <br>
>>>>>> services?<br>
>>>>>> * If so, will it be useful to adopt a
definition of <br>
>>>>>> "commercial" or "transactional" to
define those domains for which <br>
>>>>>> P/P service registrations should be
disallowed? And if so, what <br>
>>>>>> should the definition(s) be?"<br>
>>>>>> * Will it be necessary to make a
distinction in the WHOIS data <br>
>>>>>> fields to be displayed as a result?<br>
>>>>>> ---<br>
>>>>>> Thanks,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> _________________________<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Graeme Bunton<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Manager, Management Information
Systems<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Manager, Public Policy<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Tucows Inc.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
>>>>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org></a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a>
<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
_________________________<br>
Graeme Bunton<br>
Manager, Management Information Systems<br>
Manager, Public Policy<br>
Tucows Inc.<br>
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>