[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Apr 30 15:23:09 UTC 2015
Thanks Mary, very helpful. Returning to the original text, I offer the
following suggestions:
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] *you agree with this position, do you think it would*
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} *Would *it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS
data fields to be displayed as a result? (this question is not
clear, in my view, it needs more detail on the nature of the
distinction, the data fields we are talking about, and to what does
"as a result" refer? As a result of the decision to deny privacy
proxy services???)
The use of the word "will" here appears to imply agreement with the
text, you need the conditional. Then you need to seek clarification on
the other side:
* If you disagree with the proposal to deny the use of privacy and
proxy services to domain names associated with commercial activities
and which are used for online financial transactions, what are the
reasons for your rejection of this proposal?
Kind regards as always,
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-04-30 22:54, Mary Wong 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
>
>
>
> 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/20150501/ad43564b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list