[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 16:04:11 UTC 2014
Hi Kathy,
>From my point of view only:
Individuals - not relevant because not commercial
Non-Profit - not relevant because not commercial
Commercial with reasons - These reasons in general are temporary and
create a limited use class.
>From my experience (and others) these uses make up a small number of the
whole p/p group.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi All,
> The Whois Review Team did find legitimate use cases for commercial access to proxy/privacy services -- based in large part
> on a candid discussion with commercial communities in ICANN about how they use proxy/privacy services, including when they
> are launching a new business, naming a new good or service (get the cool domain name then develop the marketing campaign,
> then unveil it), not disclosing a merger before its time (to avoid reflections on stock prices), not disclosing a movie name
> before its time (this happened to great embarrassment and now attorneys and p/p service providers are used until it is time
> to unveil the movie's promotional campaign).
>
> Please see Recommendation 10 of the Whois Review Team report, which includes:
>
> "Privacy and Proxy Services
> Findings
>
> Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. These services are clearly meeting a market demand,
> and it is equally clear that these services are complicating the WHOIS landscape.
>
> Privacy and proxy services are used to address noncommercial and commercial interests,
> which many view as legitimate. For example,
>
> Individuals – who prefer not to have their personal data published on the Internet as part of a WHOIS record;
> Organizations – as religious, political or ethnic minority, or sharing controversial moral or sexual information; and
> Companies – for upcoming mergers, new product or service names, new movie names, or other product launches."
>
> Please see the full Recommendation 10 at --- http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
>
> Best,
> Kathy
> -----
>
> James Bladel wrote -----
>
> I disagree with any proposal to create ³categories² or ³classes² of
> registrants, with limited or restricted privileges. Specifically:
>
> ‹How would P/P services detect/enforce the correct Class? Particularly
> given that bad actors will do what they always do, and just lie.
>
> ‹How would we address edge cases, such as sole proprietors, or aspirant
> entrepreneurs? Are political campaigns, individual candidates, or
> churches seeking donations considered ³commercial² users?
>
> ‹What other current (and future) ICANN policies would be bifurcated and
> applied differently to different Classes? Should there also be a process
> to upgrade/downgrade a Registrant post-registration?
>
> ‹ And finally, I do not agree with the blanket (and unsupported)
> contention that all commercial users of P/P services are causing ³harms.²
> In fact, the WHOIS Review Team and other groups have clearly articulated
> several legitimate use cases for commercial access to these services.
>
>
> Thanks‹
>
> J.
>
>
> On 1/20/14, 7:10 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties,
> not advocating a position.
>
> However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from
> using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix
> that.
> The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to
> continue to control it simply continues the problem.
>
> The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
>
> --bob
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using
> p/p services, however I am not sure it is the
> sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a
> blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to
> legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
>
> In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients
> it accepts.
>
> Volker
>
>
> Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities,
> create a definition of "comercial entities" and
> then deal with those which appear to problematical.
>
> The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate
> bussiness, but their sites can be identified as
> spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a
> business. I am sure there are other methods to deal
> with problem domain names.
>
> In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
>
> --bob
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if
> there is a resounding
> response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using
> P/P services", then
> how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service
> providers determine who is a
> commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have
> declined to regulate
> the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I
> don't like asking
> questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of.
> Do the fraudsters we
> are worried about actually apply for business numbers and
> articles of
> incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate?
> I operate in a
> jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely
> difficult to make. THe
> determination would depend on the precise use being made of
> the domain
> name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis,
> and which can hardly be
> done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's
> remit. I am honestly
> not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a
> good answer to this
> problem.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>
> Jin and all
> I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important
> task here is
> agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we
> need to get
> back to framing the questions - not answering them, however
> tempting that
> may be.
>
> So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be
> barred is still
> a useful question to ask. The next question would be
> whether there are
> possible distinctions that should be drawn between an
> entity that can use
> the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the
> line drawn. I agree
> with the discussion on how difficult that will be because
> many entities
> that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for
> wanting the
> protection of such a service (human rights organisations or
> women's refuges
> come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are
> seeking from
> others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge
> answers. Let's only
> frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible
> answers.
> Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
>
> And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day
> ahead on
> Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't
> help. So Ill read
> the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for
> those who do not use
> the term)
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
>
> Don and all,
>
> As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group
> teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we
> reached a
> consensus on the groups of questions before sending them
> out to
> SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
>
> This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name
> of each
> group; and second, streamlining the questions in each
> group.
>
> In the first step, we could consider alternative headings
> (perhaps
> REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
>
> And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague
> questions.
>
> This crystallization would make the questions more
> approachable, and
> encourage better responses.
>
> I hope these ideas are helpful.
>
> Best,
>
> 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
>
>
>
> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>
> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST
> To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
> Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
>
> ³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others
> might be extracted? And where do we include/modify
> questions
> to address Stephanie's issue?"
>
> Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which
> may be
> instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed
> organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters
> has
> been that his document is a significant improvement over
> where
> we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline.
> However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to
> suggest
> modifications.
>
> Don
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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