[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3

Tue Apr 28 22:39:04 UTC 2015

SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked on 
the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not support the 
inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions without the 
opposing questions.  To do so would be to reflect a fundamental bias.  I 
would prefer to say something along the lines of the use of proxy 
services by commercial entities could be restricted by national law, 
where such law applies.
I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial 
activity.  It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such 
restrictions on Internet activity through its limited remit over domain 
name registration, a point which we have made repeatedly.
If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view leading) 
text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing 
statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am surprised to 
see announced at this late date.
cheers Stephanie

On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and 
> to Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and staff met this 
> afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>
> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we 
> recognize there is considerable support for extending the public 
> comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we 
> have all been planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but with 
> the caveat that this will have repercussions on the pace and intensity 
> of our work once public comments have been received. Specifically, if 
> the public comment deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after 
> our publication date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least 
> weekly calls throughout July and August, some of which may need to be 
> more than an hour in length, to review these comments and move toward 
> a Final Report. Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the 
> Final Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin 
> ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many additional steps 
> need to take place even after this WG issues its Final Report before 
> any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time pressure 
> imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of 
> next year is already real.
>
> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG 
> members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or 
> additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for public 
> comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no 
> later than Thursday, April 30.
>
> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 
> 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier 
> today but which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We agree that 
> this section could benefit from some revision, but believe it should 
> take the form of greater concision, not additional presentation of 
> arguments for the divergent positions. Thus we suggest that section 
> 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows:
>
> ---
>
>     Although 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 ,
>     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.
>
>     For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit
>     access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the
>     following text was proposed to clarify and define their position:
>     “domains used for online financial transactions for commercial
>     purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.”
>
>     Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following
>     questions:
>
>       * 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?
>       * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of “commercial”
>         or “transactional” to define those domains for which P/P
>         service registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what
>         should the definition(s) be?”
>       * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data
>         fields to be displayed as a result?
>
> ---
> Thanks,
>
> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>
> -- 
> _________________________
> Graeme Bunton
> Manager, Management Information Systems
> Manager, Public Policy
> Tucows Inc.
> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.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/20150429/01a7b941/attachment-0001.html>