[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy and Protection ServiceAccreditation Issues Working Group
Don Blumenthal
dblumenthal at pir.org
Tue Jan 14 18:17:18 UTC 2014
Final "ahead of ourselves" post on this thread.
Taking “commercial entity” as a possible category that we would say
shouldn’t use a p/p registration, what will turn the registrant into a
commercial entity?
Don
On 1/14/14, 12:56 PM, "Stephanie Perrin"
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Totally agree. This is something we have discussed in the EWG somewhat
>extensively. The internet equivalent of having a garage sale, or letting
>someone place a commercial sign in your front field or on the side of
>building, does not turn that registrant into a commercial entity,
>regardless of how the tax authorities view the matter of the monetary
>exchange. ICANN has no business going there, nor demanding that
>registrars try to sort through these inherently inter-jurisdictional
>nuances.
>I totally agree on the more fundamental principle of examining content
>too.
>Stephanie Perrin
>On 2014-01-14, at 12:33 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>> That's exactly why we shouldn't go there. It is a rabbit hole leading
>>to some crazy, unending debate about use, IMHO. If some due process is
>>undertaken (outside of ICANN) and an appropriate notice/order is given
>>to the p/p provider, they should take whatever course of action they are
>>directed or ordered to take. We don't have to debate what is legal or
>>isn't that is not our task, again IMHO.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "Don Blumenthal" <dblumenthal at pir.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> True. However, what if the use is legal but the website content creates
>>> questions about the domain¹s commercial/non-commercial designation if
>>>the
>>> WG recommends differentiation? To steal Gema¹s example in her first
>>> message:
>>>
>>> But, what is the difference between them? A hobbyist¹s backyard habitat
>>> website and another hobbyist¹s backyard habitat website that has, or
>>>later
>>> adds, an Amazon affiliate link to defray costs?
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/14, 10:11 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is an issue with use/content, which is not within ICANN's
>>>>mission,
>>>> as far as I read their mission. How an accredited p/p service responds
>>>> when properly notified of illegal content (following due process),
>>>>should
>>>> be the same as what is required of an accredited registrar.
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Campillos Gonzalez,
>>>> Gema Maria <GCAMPILLOS at minetur.es>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:01 AM
>>>> To: Luc SEUFER
>>>> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy and Protection
>>>> ServiceAccreditation Issues Working Group
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the reminder, Luc. I give another real-world and
>>>>trickier
>>>> instance using the word "registrant".
>>>>
>>>> Has the registrant a commercial purpose when he runs a forum-like
>>>>website
>>>> on which he also offers access to copyrighted works free of charge? In
>>>> this case, the registrant leads this activity for the sake of it and
>>>> doesn't get any profits at all from it. But, he is causing great
>>>>damage
>>>> to right holders.
>>>>
>>>> I join the conference now.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gema
>>>>
>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>> De: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer at dclgroup.eu]
>>>> Enviado el: martes, 14 de enero de 2014 15:33
>>>> Para: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria
>>>> CC: Jim Bikoff; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy and Protection
>>>> ServiceAccreditation Issues Working Group
>>>>
>>>> Hello Gema,
>>>>
>>>> Just a kind reminder that ICANN is only dealing with domain names, not
>>>> websites. Thus, in my opinion, the distinction should be made on the
>>>> registrant type alone.
>>>> Hosting services are regulated by ad'hoc laws and those services are
>>>> outside of ICANN's scope.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, to serve the EU an online merchant has to abide by
>>>>Directive
>>>> 2000/31 (its national transpositions to be more precise) and must
>>>>publish
>>>> their details on their website. Should they fail to do so, the hosting
>>>> provider should be the party that LEA should contact, not the
>>>>registrar.
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 14, 2014, at 14:24, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria
>>>> <GCAMPILLOS at minetur.es<mailto:GCAMPILLOS at minetur.es>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with commentators that this categorization is clearer than the
>>>> previous one.
>>>>
>>>> Although I am aware of your reluctance to introduce variations to the
>>>> Charter questions passed by the GNSO Council on 31st October, a doubt
>>>>has
>>>> come up to my mind. Some of the questions rest on the difference
>>>>between
>>>> commercial and non-commercial activities (4, 5 and 6 in the first
>>>>group
>>>> and 4 in the last one). But, what is the difference between them? A
>>>> copyright infringing website where video streaming or downloads are
>>>>free
>>>> of charge but which is supported by advertisements or SMS premium
>>>> services is a commercial or a non-commercial activity?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Gema
>>>>
>>>> De:
>>>>
>>>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at ic
>>>>ann
>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Jim
>>>> Bikoff Enviado el: lunes, 13 de enero de 2014 23:05
>>>> Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Asunto: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Privacy and Protection Service
>>>> Accreditation Issues Working Group
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Although the question groupings are still being completed, it may be
>>>> helpful to our audience if we grouped the questions in the letters in
>>>> some logical, categorical manner, even if that grouping is but a
>>>>draft.
>>>>
>>>> To address the substantive content of the questions, it seems that the
>>>> ultimate issue is set forth in the first question: "What, if any, are
>>>>the
>>>> types of Standard Services Practices that should be adopted and
>>>>published
>>>> by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers?" The questions
>>>> following it address that main issue. Most of the issues and
>>>>questions
>>>> could be subsumed under the following general categories:
>>>>
>>>> * MAINTENANCE of privacy/proxy services; * CONTACT point provided by
>>>> each privacy/proxy service; * RELAY of complaints to the
>>>>privacy/proxy
>>>> customer; and * REVEAL of privacy/proxy customers' identities.
>>>> If we followed this categorization, the issues and questions would be
>>>> grouped as follows:
>>>>
>>>> MAIN ISSUES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. What, if any, are the types of Standard Service Practices that
>>>> should be adopted and published by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy
>>>>service
>>>> providers?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Should ICANN distinguish between privacy and proxy services
>>>>for
>>>> the purpose of the accreditation process?
>>>>
>>>> 3. What are the contractual obligations, if any, that, if
>>>> unfulfilled, would justify termination of customer access by
>>>> ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? Should there be any
>>>> forms of non-compliance that would trigger cancellation or suspension
>>>>of
>>>> registrations? If so, which?
>>>>
>>>> 4. What are the effects of the privacy and proxy service
>>>> specification contained in the 2013 RAA? Have these new requirements
>>>> improved WHOIS quality, registrant contactability, and service
>>>>usability?
>>>>
>>>> 5. What should be the contractual obligations of ICANN accredited
>>>> registrars with regard to accredited privacy/proxy service providers?
>>>> Should registrars be permitted to knowingly accept registrations where
>>>> the registrant is using unaccredited service providers that are bound
>>>>to
>>>> the same standards as accredited service providers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MAINTENANCE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be
>>>> required to label WHOIS entries to clearly show when a registration is
>>>> made through a privacy/proxy service?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be
>>>> required to conduct periodic checks to ensure accuracy of customer
>>>> contact information; and if so, how?
>>>>
>>>> 3. What rights and responsibilities should customers of
>>>> privacy/proxy services have? What obligations should ICANN-accredited
>>>> privacy/proxy service providers have in managing these rights and
>>>> responsibilities? Clarify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies
>>>> should apply.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers
>>>> distinguish between domain names registered or used for commercial
>>>>with
>>>> those registered or used for personal purposes? Specifically, is the
>>>>use
>>>> of privacy/proxy services appropriate when a domain name is
>>>>registered or
>>>> used for commercial purposes?
>>>>
>>>> 5. Should there be a difference in the data fields to be
>>>>displayed
>>>> if the domain name is registered or used for a commercial purpose or
>>>>by a
>>>> commercial entity instead of a natural person?
>>>>
>>>> 6. Should the use of privacy/proxy services be restricted only to
>>>> registrants who are private individuals using the domain name for
>>>> non-commercial purposes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CONTACT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. What measures should be taken to ensure contactability and
>>>> responsiveness of the providers?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be
>>>> required to maintain dedicated points of contact for reporting abuse?
>>>>If
>>>> so, should the terms be consistent with the requirements applicable to
>>>> registrars under Section 3.18 of the RAA?
>>>>
>>>> 3. Should full WHOIS contact details for ICANN-accredited
>>>> privacy/proxy service providers be required?
>>>>
>>>> 4. What forms of malicious conduct, if any, should be covered by
>>>>a
>>>> designated published point of contact at an ICANN-accredited
>>>> privacy/proxy service provider?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RELAY
>>>>
>>>> 1. What, if any, baseline minimum standardized relay processes
>>>> should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be
>>>> required to forward to the customer all allegations of illegal
>>>>activities
>>>> they receive relating to specific domain names of the customer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> REVEAL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. What, if any, baseline minimum standardized reveal processes
>>>> should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be
>>>> required to reveal customer identities for the specific purpose of
>>>> ensuring timely service of cease and desist letters?
>>>>
>>>> 3. What forms of alleged malicious conduct, if any, and what
>>>> evidentiary standard would be sufficient to trigger such disclosure?
>>>>What
>>>> specific violations, if any, would be sufficient to trigger such
>>>> disclosure?
>>>>
>>>> 4. What safeguards, if any, should be put in place to ensure
>>>> adequate protections for privacy and freedom of expression? Should
>>>>these
>>>> standards vary depending on whether the website is being used for
>>>> commercial or non-commercial purposes? What safeguards or remedies
>>>>should
>>>> be available in cases where publication is found to have been
>>>>unwarranted?
>>>>
>>>> 5. What circumstances, if any, would warrant access to
>>>>registrant
>>>> data by law enforcement agencies?
>>>>
>>>> 6. What clear, workable, enforceable and standardized processes
>>>> should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy services in order
>>>>to
>>>> regulate such access (if such access is warranted)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if this categorization is helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> James L. Bikoff
>>>> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
>>>> 1101 30th Street, NW
>>>> Suite 120
>>>> Washington, DC 20007
>>>> Tel: 202-944-3303
>>>> Fax: 202-944-3306
>>>> jbikoff at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended
>>>>solely
>>>> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
>>>> you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender
>>>> immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the
>>>>message
>>>> or disclose its contents to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really
>>>>need
>>>> to.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list