[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
John Horton
john.horton at legitscript.com
Fri May 23 17:18:07 UTC 2014
But if one agrees that it's good policy for commercial-use websites to put
the contact information accurately and transparently on the website, then
why would it be bad policy to require the same in the domain name's Whois
record? :) What would be the additional burden on a registrant to also
provide the same accurate and transparent (non-p/p) information in the
Whois record? (And, if they have to disclose the information on their
website, why would they need to use privacy/proxy in the first place?)
Allow me to respond to a couple of policy arguments made in other emails on
this thread. First, I think that the point that some people were trying to
make -- please correct me if I'm misstating this -- is that the average
Internet user doesn't know what "Whois" is; therefore, if we care about
consumer protection or corporate transparency, the better policy is to
require disclosure of that information in the content of the website, as
the EU appears to require. This makes the information more readily and more
easily available to Internet users, where a good or service is being sold
on or via the website. Therefore (with direct relevance to our task),
requiring commercial use-registrations to not use p/p is specious. Am I
summarizing that portion of the argument correctly?
I'd ask the group to consider two contrary points: the AOC and how
derivative use benefits consumer trust. First, the Affirmation of
Commitments explicitly references law enforcement and consumer trust *with
reference to Whois* in Section 9.3.1: "ICANN additionally commits to
enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS...(which) requires that
ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access
to accurate and complete WHOIS information...(and at various
intervals)...ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its
implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and
its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and
promotes consumer trust." The point I'm making here is that there's already
a recognition in ICANN policy that consumer trust and legitimate law
enforcement needs are relevant objectives in setting Whois policy.
Second, in considering consumer trust, it's important to consider direct
use *and* derivative use of Whois, and how both relate to consumer trust
and law enforcement. I think that Volker, Stephanie and others are likely
right that the average Internet user may not be familiar with Whois, and
may not use it *directly*. (However, I would *strongly* argue that there
are, indeed, average Internet users who do know what Whois is and
occasionally look to see who has registered a domain name.) However, there
are ample *derivative* benefits to consumer trust. Consider three examples:
1. The widely-used Web-of-Trust reputational plugin (mywot.com). The
direct user of the WOT plugin does not see the Whois data, but it is plain
to see in the WOT forums that many of the reputational determinations are
derived from information about truthful/accurate, inaccurate or protected
Whois.
2. Credit card networks' and banks' risk assessments relating to
merchant fraud. The cardholder does not see Whois records, but firms like
ours help determine merchant risk rely in part on Whois to make that
determination (e.g., also looking to see if the same Whois record is
connected with other fraudulent commercial activity); the cardholder
(consumer) is not directly accessing Whois, but benefits derivatively.
3. Monitoring services for search advertising or e-commerce for fraud or
illegal activity. Here too, the customer does not directly access the Whois
record, but derivatively benefits since Whois analysis is one component of
verifying seller identification.
In any case, I'm making two intertwined points in this email. First,
consumer trust is a recognized objective of Whois policy; and second, in
evaluating how consumer trust is affected by Whois policy, we have to
consider both direct and derivative use. The argument that few people
directly use Whois, and therefore consumers aren't benefiting from it
anyway (and therefore it's fine to allow p/p for commercial-use domain
names), fails to account for the derivate ways in which consumers are
protected via third-parties' use of Whois.
Cheers,
John Horton
President, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*:
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>
| Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> |
Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript>
| YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog
<http://blog.legitscript.com>* |
Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
> Volker
>
>
>
> It’s a legal requirement under Irish law – it’s also why you get all my
> contact details in every single email I send including the company’s
> address and registered number. The Irish legislation is worded in such a
> way that it just makes sense to put it all out there in every electronic
> communication rather than risk falling foul of the law.
>
>
>
> We’re also obliged to follow the EU legislation with respect to cookies
> (not the edible variety unfortunately) and the Irish DPA has pursued Irish
> companies who were not complying.
>
>
>
> As for levels of consensus and how they are reached, I’d tend to agree
> with your characterisation of matters.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From:* Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 23, 2014 9:26 AM
> *To:* John Horton; Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> *Cc:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> maybe I am too European, but I actually think that putting your business
> details on your website is the norm and good practice. In fact, in the EEC,
> it is the law. When a service does not do this, or not properly, that is a
> usually a good sign that something is fishy. Usually a better sign than
> anything whois details can tell me.
>
> At least all over Europe, lawmakers have thought long and hard about where
> to require this data to be placed, and they have agreed that the website is
> the best way to do it. I believe this should serve as a signal for our
> deliberations as well.
>
> I think the use of "*where similar legal requirements already exist"*clearly makes the point that this is not the case around the world (yet).
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 22.05.2014 18:47, schrieb John Horton:
>
> I'd agree with Kiran that if possible, it's helpful to edit an existing
> document, so that everyone can see the tracked changes, including what's
> been removed. I'd be particularly interested in knowing what phrases seem
> inaccurate to others, or (to cite Volker's concern) drafted to favor one
> position. We (genuinely) are trying to propose a balanced statement that
> reflects the divergent views in the group, and welcome edits.
>
>
>
> Although my sense was that Libby's version was fair and balanced, I'd like
> to flag my concern (with respect and appreciation for the draft, Volker!)
> about this sentence in Volker's version:
>
>
>
> *However, a number of other WG members, also representing their SO/AC/C,
> noted that where similar legal requirements already exist for the "online
> world", such disclosure is usually required to be contained under a
> prominent link on the web site as in the translation from the "offline
> world" to the "online world" legislators usually focussed on the content
> available under the domain name, not the domain name registration itself. *
>
>
>
> I understand that the paragraph includes the phrase "where similar
> legal requirements already exist" perhaps makes the statement technically
> accurate -- it's sort of a truism -- but it's really not a common enough
> legal requirement around the world that (in my opinion) it has relevance
> for this discussion or the WG's written answer. I think it leads the reader
> to (inaccurately) conclude that such requirements generally exist, and
> therefore any disclosure requirement in the Whois record for commercial-use
> entities would be duplicative. I don't believe that the data exist to
> support that conclusion. Reasonable minds can disagree as to the answer to
> Question 1, but I don't think we should imply that "Yes" is simply
> duplicative of already-existing legal requirements, as I think that phrase
> is (unintentionally, I'm sure) likely to favor the other position.
>
>
>
>
> John Horton
> President, LegitScript
>
>
>
>
>
> *Follow* *Legit**Script*: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>
> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript>
> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog
> <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
> michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this Volker
>
> I would be supportive of this language
>
>
> 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
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:57 PM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>
>
>
> I can't support the amended language for obvious reasons. The draft
> proposed here is clearly drafted to favor one position. If we want to get
> anywere, we need a more balanced approach.
>
> How about this:
>
>
>
> * 1) c)*
>
> *As noted above, the WG appears to unanimously agree that the mere fact of
> a domain being registered as a commercial entity, or conducting commercial
> activity in other spheres, should not prevent the use of p/p domain name
> registration services. *
>
> *A number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, noted that in the
> “offline world” businesses often are required to register with the relevant
> authority as well as disclose details about their identity and location.
> These members suggested that domains used for commercial purposes should be
> ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations. However, a number of other
> WG members, also representing their SO/AC/C, noted that where similar legal
> requirements already exist for the "online world", such disclosure is
> usually required to be contained under a prominent link on the web site as
> in the translation from the "offline world" to the "online world"
> legislators usually focussed on the content available under the domain
> name, not the domain name registration itself. Further, these members argue
> that there may be valid reasons why domain name registrants using their
> domain names for commercial purposes may legitimately need the availability
> of such services.*
>
> *There is further divergence within the WG between those members
> expressing the view that it is both necessary and practical to distinguish
> in the whois between domains used for a commercial purpose and those
> domains that are not used for a noncommercial purpose, and those members
> that expressed the view that it is neither practical nor necessary to
> require p/p service providers to make that distinction. *
>
>
> Volker
>
> Am 22.05.2014 16:55, schrieb Libby Baney:
>
> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the
> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per the
> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the template
> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l,
> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your comments
> and further discussion if needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Libby
>
>
>
> www.FWDstrategies.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated
> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting (if I've
> missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the mailing list).
> To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
>
> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion for C
> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested
> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other
> proposed edits?
> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are of
> the view that there should be differences in the data fields displayed for
> commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it
> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact
> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P
> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input on what
> would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for responses are
> also encouraged.
> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on
> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P registrations and
> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *<Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
> *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>
>
>
> Thanks to all participants on today’s call. Following up on requests made
> on the call ----
>
>
>
> Regarding Don’s draft preliminary text regarding questions C(threshold), C
> 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially welcomed!)
> proposed edits. Don’s draft is re-attached here for ready reference.
>
>
>
> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please respond
> on the list:
>
>
>
> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to commercial
> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a difference in the
> data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed for p/p
> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please specify
> the differences.
>
>
>
> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES people
> will step forward on the list.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz, vice chair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG Meeting.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Proposed Agenda – PPSAI WG Meeting – 20 May 2014*
>
> 1. Roll Call / SOI
> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, C1
> and C2 (as circulated by Don)
> 3. Review C3 – is additional response/discussion needed in light of
> item 2? (see template attached)
> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Libby Baney, JD
>
> President
>
> FWD Strategies International
>
> www.fwdstrategies.com
>
> P: 202-499-2296
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
> Volker A. Greimann
>
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
>
> Im Oberen Werk 1
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
> www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Volker A. Greimann
>
> - legal department -
>
>
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
>
> Im Oberen Werk 1
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
> www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
> Volker A. Greimann
>
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
>
> Im Oberen Werk 1
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
> www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Volker A. Greimann
>
> - legal department -
>
>
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
>
> Im Oberen Werk 1
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
> www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140523/8fa59d6f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list