[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Edits to Executive Summary

Tue Apr 28 02:37:33 UTC 2015

Hi All,

I think the Excerpt from the Executive Summary is very important as it 
is likely to be what people read first – and then they will decide 
whether or not to jump into our long report. To that end, I would like 
to propose some edits for clarity, fairness and balance.

 1. Page numbers – if we are publishing this as a stand alone
    documentary, let’s add page numbers to make reading and editing
    references easier.
 2. Footnote 1 [as edited by Steve] and as already done in the main
    Report, this text should be moved into the main body of the text.
    It’s the key to the strange code of brackets that we use in the
    Interim Report and everyone should see it…
 3. Section 1.3.3, Specific topics on there is currently no consensus
    within the WG, needs a lot of work. The issues we wrote about long
    ago, in our initial draft of this Executive Summary, have been
    updated and expanded – especially with all the work we have done on
    Reveal since then!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Edits to 1.3.3.Given all of our work with Reveal since this 
first Executive Summary was first published, I submit the following 
changes to the Executive Summary (and as needed to correspond in the 
Interim Report)

To opening of 1.3.3. after “Specific Topics on which there is currently 
no consensus within the WG:”

[Add] The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key 
details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim 
Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the 
WG has not reached consensus. These include:

-What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal 
Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current 
recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?

-Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a 
Reveal Request to a 3^rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt 
reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid 
unnecessary and potentially harassing and time-consuming appeals?(Note: 
a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended 
process the WG has agreed toby consensus.)

-What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged 
to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for 
maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or 
trademark infringement allegation?

-How can Customers be protected from requests from Law Enforcement from 
outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal 
purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in 
other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national 
lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues 
because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol 
Constitution]

Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.

In addition, [existing text] “[a]lthough the WG agreed that the mere 
fact that a domain name is registered by a commercial entity or by 
anyone conducting commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P 
services[1] <#_ftn1>, there was disagreement over whether domain names 
that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or 
exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited from using P/P 
services. While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is 
necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants of such 
domain names should not be able to use or continue using proxy or 
privacy services. These members noted that businesses in the “offline 
world” are often required to register with relevant authorities as well 
as disclose details about their identities and locations. They expressed 
the view that it is both necessary and practical to distinguish between 
domains used for a commercial purpose (irrespective of whether the 
registrant is actually registered as a commercial entity anywhere) and 
those domains (which may be operated by commercial entity) that are used 
for a non-commercial purpose.”

*/[add] /*//Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and 
membership drives are often performed by the very groups and 
organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, 
including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, 
ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, 
gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of 
expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the 
laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership 
fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial. 
Further, many of these organizations conduct their financial 
transactions through 3^rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, 
and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. 
Accordingly, many in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the 
proxy/privacy of organizations and groups for this reason. They further 
note many in the WG submit that content regulation is beyond the scope 
of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws.

[existing] The WG chairs suggested that such domains might be more 
usefully termed “transactional” rather than more generally “commercial” 
domains. They developed the following suggested definition and potential 
recommendation to describe the view of some WG members regarding these 
transactional domains: /“domains used for online financial transactions 
for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy 
registrations.”/

*/[add] /*This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of 
the WG and has not reached consensus. Input requested!

*/[I request the deletion of the rest of this section as too much detail 
for an Executive Summary and detracting from the many open other issues 
of the Executive Summary and Interim report.]/*

*//*

·Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial 
activities and which are used for online financial transactions be 
prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?

·Will it be useful to adopt a definition of “commercial” or 
“transactional” (and if so, should this be that suggested by the WG 
Chairs or some other)?

·Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to 
be displayed as a result?]

Best,
Kathy
p.s. also attached as a word doc

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1>The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically 
acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate 
interests, both commercial and non-commercial.

icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150427/95731c51/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Edits to Executive Summary KK.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150427/95731c51/EditstoExecutiveSummaryKK-0001.doc>