[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 16:31:27 UTC 2014
Hi James,
=====================================================================
As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop
answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you
wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list.
==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
> Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
>
> And is it your contention that criminals provide valid
> identification/contact details to the P/P service?
>
> Thanks‹
>
> J.
>
>
> On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider
>> undermining whois a harm, as well
>>
>> --bob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>> What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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