[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 16:25:39 UTC 2014
Hi Michele,
I am well aware of how the world works. The attempt at simplification is
to make the problem more managable, not to ignore the tough issues. It is
a pretty standard way to attack problems.
It is also a way to cut through the distractions presented by folks with
an agenda, that may include derailing a process :)
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Bob
>
> With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" - it's made up of varying shades of different colours
>
> You and others like to over simplify things.
>
> And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay
>
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.co/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM
> To: Kathy Kleiman
> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>
>
> 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
>
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list