[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits
John Horton
john.horton at legitscript.com
Tue Jan 7 19:11:50 UTC 2014
Hello all,
As promised, I wanted to follow up on Don's and Kathy's proposed edits with
some additional proposed edits to the input template; these edits are in
part based on the background I provided earlier. (The letter from Don to
the SO/AC chair can, perhaps, be edited based on whether there is consensus
around our proposed edits.) My edits are to Kathy's version which is based
on Don's edits -- Don, Marika, Kathy, let me know if there's a better way I
should have done that!
I wanted to briefly explain the rationale for some of these proposed edits.
- When an allegation of illegal activity is submitted to the p/p service
provider, it is important to understand that it may be coming from a victim
of the crime. We regularly receive and process complaints of illegal pharma
activity from victims (or familiar members, if a victim ends up dead or in
the hospital). We must remember that in this case, the registrant has the
victim's personal information -- where they live, their phone number, their
payment details, and so forth. It is not unheard of that a rogue pharma
operator -- just to use an example in my area of knowledge -- seeks to
retailiate or make threats. Accordingly, we have added suggested questions
to the portion asking for input as to whether the p/p service provider
should be required to relay the allegation to the registrant, since
standard practices should make allowances for the fact that the allegation
may come from a victim seeking redress or additional information. I would
argue that the relay/disclosure process should appropriately consider how
to protect both registrants and alleged victims.
- Similarly, I proposed an additional question regarding whether, if
disclosure to the registrant is not required, it should be permitted even
if law enforcement explains that it will jeopardize an investigation. The
rationale for this is simply that in many cases -- in the offline world, as
the online world -- disclosing this information puts a legitimate
investigation at risk.
- The proposed questions pertaining to jurisdiction are based on the
problem I identified (and Gema did, as well) in our earlier emails. I do
feel that the way I've written the questions can be clarified and improved,
so I welcome anyone who would like to give that a shot.
- Similarly, we propose a question that relates to the other business
interests controlled by or affiliated with the p/p service. To explain
this, we have sometimes seen that the criminal organization "is" the
privacy/proxy service. (Currently, of course, there is no accreditation
scheme, but the fact remains that is what we see, and I am happy to provide
examples if need be.) To be very specific, we know of circumstances where a
rogue Internet pharmacy network operates its own "proxy" service, or
alternatively, the proxy service -- that is, the individuals who operate it
-- also operates as affiliate marketers for rogue networks, using their own
privacy/proxy service primarily for their own illegal purposes.
Finally, although I unfortunately had to miss the call this morning, I
believe that some of the comments may have argued that registrars (or,
ICANN) should not have to address criminal jurisdictional issues (that is,
multi-jurisdictional complexities). I'd note that banks, credit card
networks and search engine ad programs regularly have to address precisely
the same multi-jurisdictional questions relating to criminal activity on
their platform and do not simply leave it to law enforcement. I would argue
that there is no reason to consider registrars a special case that are for
some reason exempt from having to address the same issues that companies in
the financial and advertising sectors have had to address, and have by and
large done so quite competently. I am confident that the registrar
community can competently do the same.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input, and I welcome any
suggestions as to how our suggestions can be improved or refined.
John Horton
President, 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 Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>wrote:
>
>
> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Date: Tuesday 7 January 2014 16:38
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Subject: Fwd: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits
>
> Hi Marika, could you post this to our working group?
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Draft Grouping of Charter
> Questions - some edits Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:35:02 -0500From: Kathy
> Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>To:
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> Hi All,
> Hopefully you have seen the proposed edits I just to the SG-C Input
> Template (I haven't seen them posted).
>
> Attached here are some inputs to the Draft Grouping of Charter Questions -
> with an organizational-type perspective being added. The world is really
> not just commercial/individual, but truly one of commercial, noncommercial
> and individual (as ICANN has organized its non-contracted parties).
>
> For a religious group, political group, hobby group, dissident group may
> be organized as a limited liability company to protect the members in case
> someone falls in the building, but that does not nullify the fact that the
> group is engaged primarily and fully in noncommercial speech (as the wide
> array of members of NCSG show).
>
> Again edits highlighted and hopefully visible. I would like to see much
> more discussion on this issue in our next meeting and over the list.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> :
>
> I will miss the first 30 minutes due to another obligation, but will join
> as soon as I can.
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 4:30 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI PDP WG Meeting
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next PPSAI PDP WG meeting
> (Tuesday 7 January at 15.00 UTC).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Proposed Agenda – PPSAI PDP WG Meeting – 7 January 2013*
>
> 1. Roll Call / SOI
>
> 2. Review & finalise SG/C Template (see revised version attached)
>
> 3. Review & finalise SO/AC Outreach Letter (see revised version
> attached)
>
> 4. Input to EWG Survey (see attached)
>
> 5. Update on WG members survey (to participate, please go to
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86N33WX)
>
> 6. Review proposed charter question groupings (see latest version
> attached)
>
> 7. Next steps & confirm next meeting
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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/20140107/47f002b9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PPSAI - SG - C Input Template - 18 December 2013 - dmb kk jch edits.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140107/47f002b9/PPSAI-SG-CInputTemplate-18December2013-dmbkkjchedits-0001.doc>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list