[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Apr 30 14:11:38 UTC 2015
But Mary, the questions could indeed be a bit less one-sided. We did
also talk about a) the German law that requires identification of
appropriate businesses and their locations (but not all organizations
raising funds for any reason); b) the limited mandate and scope of
ICANN; c) the difficulty of distinguishing across the spectrum and not
treating a mom-owned home business like an Amazon.
It seems like a simple question into you dive into the complexities...
and that's what I think Stephanie and I and others would like to shed
light on -- even and especially in this Interim Report.
Best,
Kathy
:
> To add to Stephanie’s note that this specific issue - whether
> registrants of domain names actively used for commercial transactions
> ought to be disallowed from using P/P services - had been discussed at
> some length by the WG:
>
> Please note that this part of the Initial Report draws heavily on the
> detailed WG template for Charter Category C that was the basis for the
> WG’s deliberations on this topic. That template contains lengthy
> descriptions of what had previously been termed the majority and
> minority positions on the WG’s answer to this specific issue. As part
> of the WG’s deliberations – which took place primarily between April
> and June 2014 - the more specific formulation of “transactional” to
> describe the sort of commercial (i.e. Involving financial
> transactions) activities that were being discussed was included in the
> language. All the templates and suggested formulations discussed by
> the WG are recorded and published on the WG wiki.
>
> The WG ultimately agreed to retain the two positions in the Initial
> Report and to revisit the question during its review of the public
> comments received. As noted previously, the WG's views were presented
> to the community in London in June 2014 and again in Los Angeles in
> October 2014.
>
> Therefore, the three questions in Section 1.3.3 of the Executive
> Summary _only_ go toward soliciting community input on this single
> issue. They were not intended to represent a view of any “side” in the
> WG with regard to this matter. If the WG prefers, we can add a
> sentence to clarify and specify the reason for the questions in
> Section 1.3.3. Fundamentally, the idea is that public comments will
> facilitate the WG’s eventual resolution of this issue as part of its
> preparation of the Final Report.
>
> We hope this reminder of the background is of assistance.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
>
>
> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20
> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>,
> James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>, Michele Blacknight
> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>
> James, prior to you joining the group, we had discussed this at
> some length. IN fact, I really thought that the many reasons why
> sorting out the purpose of a registration is problematic had
> buried this debate, but apparently not. Some of the issues
> raised, according to my recollection were the following:
>
> * names are registered prior to decisions about content
> * content changes over time
> * most countries regulate e-commerce in some fashion, so that
> website commercial activity does not have to be regulated by
> ICANN
> * ICANN should not be in the business of regulating content in
> the first place (and sorting out who is extracting a material
> consideration from a website in order to deny them the ability
> to use a proxy registration is certainly a form of regulation)
> * definitions of commercial activity vary widely around the world
> * bad actors will not declare, registrars cannot police this matter
> * criminal prosecution is not dependent on WHOIS information
> * if this is really about the ability to detect market
> information, ICANN should not be in the business of making
> registrant information available for market purposes, it does
> it for security and stability.
> * contactability remains, regardless of which registrant info
> appears in WHOIS
>
> I am planning to reformulate these into questions to match the
> questions on the other side, suggestions welcome.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2015-04-30 16:24, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> I don’t see this as asking providers to enforce anything similar
>> to other questions when registering a domain, it’s a
>> self-reported assessment. All it does is add an additional branch
>> to the decision tree for eligibility, which will already be there
>> to determine eligibility due to the other reasons listed below.
>>
>> The registrant is asked will you be processing financial
>> transactions.
>>
>> ·YesàWill you be using a 3^rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P.
>>
>> ·YesàWill you be using a 3^rd party>Yes>Eligible for P/P.
>>
>> I’m not asking registrars to enforce law but to see if a more
>> finely grained eligibility process can be enacted. Or at least is
>> there is public support for more granularity.
>>
>> -James
>>
>> *From:*Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:17 AM
>> *To:* James Gannon; Graeme Bunton; PPSAI
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and
>> Section 1.3.3
>>
>> James
>>
>> As a registrar or PP service provider how am I meant to assess this?
>>
>> It doesn’t scale
>>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> If, for example, there is an Irish operated website that is not
>> complying with Irish law then it would be up to the ODCE
>> (http://www.odce.ie/) to enforce whatever needs enforcing, as it
>> would be up to the DPA to enforce any issues around data privacy
>> etc., etc.,
>>
>> Attempting to force registrars and PP providers to make these
>> kind of evaluations is not going to work.
>>
>> Issues like PCI-DSS compliance are matters that should be dealt
>> with by the DPA and the banks.
>>
>> Forcing registrars and PP providers to start getting involved in
>> that kind of assessment isn’t viable
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Michele
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>
>> Blacknight Solutions
>>
>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>
>> http://www.blacknight.host/
>>
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>
>> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
>>
>> http://www.technology.ie
>>
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>>
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>
>> Social: http://mneylon.social
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> Park,Sleaty
>>
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>>
>> *From: *James Gannon
>> *Date: *Thursday 30 April 2015 07:45
>> *To: *Graeme Bunton, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and
>> Section 1.3.3
>>
>> I would personally like to see if there is public traction for
>> distinguishing between sites directly processing financial
>> truncations and sites who use 3^rd parties for processing
>> financial transactions as this is a very important distinction. A
>> simple and I hope non-controversial additional question to the
>> ones below:
>>
>> If so, should domains which use a third party to process
>> financial transactions (i.e Paypal, Stripe), and thus do not
>> directly process financial information, be subject to the same
>> restrictions?
>>
>> There are strong existing distinctions both in national laws and
>> in regulations such as PCI-DSS between these two forms.
>>
>> -James Gannon
>>
>> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *Graeme Bunton
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17 PM
>> *To:* PPSAI
>> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>>
>> 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.orghttps://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/8187bf47/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list