[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 16:41:34 UTC 2014
Hi Michele,
Well, it may or not be an intellectual exercise, but using one's intellect
to solve a problem is the usual way to go. Reducing complex problems to
simple parts is also a pretty standard approach.
I fully expect this to end being a binding ICANN policy, which will affect
operations. Keep in mind that Registrars introduced this problem, so this
is just a consequence to be dealt with.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Bob
>
> This is not an intellectual exercise. A binding ICANN policy will impact
> operations, so by simplifying a complex problem you don't solve
> anything. In fact you do the opposite
>
> 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: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen at coldrain.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:26 PM
> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>
>
>
> 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-e
>>> n
>>> .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
>
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list