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

Thu Apr 30 14:26:24 UTC 2015

+1 to Kiran.

Justin Macy, PharmD/JD
Staff Pharmacist/Legal Analyst
<http://www.legitscript.com/>

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil <
Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:

> Mary,
>
> Since one side of this issue prepared a lengthy legal review to address
> this question, I would request that that white paper be included in the
> reference materials for the public comment. Since public comment is meant
> to "resolve" this issue, commenters need all of the information.
>
> It's not just down to feasibility of self-declaration at registration
> (which frankly, many of us see as a cop out since it's already done in some
> TLDs), but also legality.
> Not trying to re-open the debate, but please, let's make sure the
> community understands the various points and the background.
>
> K
>
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil
> Internet Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415-419-9138 (m)
>
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:
> mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> 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<mailto: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.
>
>
> ·         Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P.
>
> ·         Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd 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 3rd 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.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/0d4bc4ef/attachment-0001.html>