[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Mon Jan 20 16:47:22 UTC 2014
In an effort to keep things progressing in a constructive manner, I will
also disengage from this thread as it is diverging from the scope of the
PDP.
But I would recommend against making statements like “registrars
introduced this problem.” Registrars have innovated in many areas and
offer tons of great products like DNS, hosting, email, SEO, brand
protection, etc. -ALL- of these services have the potential to be abused
by bad actors, and it is (or should be) the goal of ICANN and other groups
to help constructively address this. But prohibiting millions of
customers from accessing these services, or blocking entire categories of
uses & users, is IMHO, not a serious approach to the problem.
Thanks—
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:41 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
>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