[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
John Horton
john.horton at legitscript.com
Thu Apr 30 17:11:13 UTC 2015
+1 (Kiran)
John Horton
President and CEO, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter
<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog
<http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+
<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil <
Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
> I don’t support footnoting the disagreement. It’s far too significant
> of an issue for a footnote.
>
>
>
> I support Steve’s suggestion on the language.
>
>
>
> K
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:49 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>
>
>
> Actually, and I do hate to belabor this but:
> 1. I thought you were proposing to drop the entire proposed new section
> and merely footnote the disagreement. I like that option a lot.
> 2. If we are proposing to keep the text, then there should be a balanced
> construction. I include once again the preamble, which affects that
> balance:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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." For
> those that argued that limiting access to P/P services to exclude entities
> who were engaged in online financial transactions was impracticable and
> created an unacceptable risk to NGOs and vulnerable organizations who had
> legitimate needs for the services, the following text was proposed to
> clarify and define their position: "Attempting to distinguish the end
> purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of
> determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and may unfairly
> discriminate against vulnerable groups and organizations who wish to
> exercise their rights of free speech on the Internet". 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, why, and if not, why not?
>
>
> - 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???)
>
>
>
> ** What risks do you foresee with either option?*
>
>
> I would note that the clarifying questions here go to proposing draft text
> for the report, right down to the definition and data fields. I have added
> a question on risk....because before coming up with draft text to implement
> the banning of P/P use by those engaged in commercial activity (via the
> comments in response to this invitation), we have to look at the many risks
> here....key among them being that privacy proxy services will be priced out
> of the market by the complexity of the exercise, a point that registrars
> made on a number of occasions. This is an excellent outcome for those who
> do not favor them, but the NCSG certainly considers the services to be
> essential (I can only speak for them, but I know there is support in other
> quarters).
> Further, the final question is neutral, as there are clearly risks on both
> sides, and we seek the answers for both.
>
> Cheers SP
>
> ---
>
> On 2015-05-01 1:06, Graeme Bunton wrote:
>
> Good suggestions, Steve.
> Thank you,
> Graeme
>
> On 2015-04-30 11:58 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> Perhaps a simpler way to accomplish this would be to insert the following
> at the end of the first bullet:
>
>
>
> “If so, why, and if not, why not?”
>
>
>
> We could then introduce the next two questions with “If so,” and change
> “will” to “would” as Stephanie suggests.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:23 AM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org; Mary Wong
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>
>
>
> 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>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20
> *To: *"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>, James
> Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>, Michele Blacknight <
> 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 3rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P.
>
> · YesàWill 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
> <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/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDKActStEmX7ndjfqnEIgUMkdhXCAGe_aALVo69T0irIiCOftGW0RRkFeeJXP_SQ_bxxN5c9ZWrJzjnfSpDUeI4UjuT2dsrtgXox-JsiUyGsBvbDhSHcf2gH3gqSI2YwvUnORJuOhanPP2uCSQp3bey2BqQKbirhovyP6hDiunUi2Ilg>) 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/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh-J4kMLvQtMGZn5lKnoQO8ikZnQiTNL6FLbYD67s4dF-tWj2IbgtPVbZIrmLhFiT8cZvRoXUKLem6cyG8n3JE6-tis8tEkBPwKkOuqFU7azbPzFSZPBE0XjNt1o6W5MAy5yWOEr-3QLGcTYMC5oDDDwuftYuz9pHDOyvEieReE36N1UxTeWXBI__3g1_xmHN4S0>
>
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wVhCgpAj6NRi9Y8zMxa9MvTN2vhD-EWNpvAhObo3t9Jl-Kh7ki557bXwOMPGhz-Up4X8e1Q8UR-DF0d4jYhrGpb0LrotD50UduC3QQRYUJ24nEnbyayh-GPs3hk77LhEpDwYrSf4v_RqmohacWFuO-pMc6Ap8I9JulleUf0h9FbW-MHMc1xlq8F7WXPVnekaa_Tg>
>
> http://www.blacknight.press
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFnhsCzIT83jwX24BSxN_VMtJYpUgkSGF-Qst71LuBVQLY87bs-vewJiEDX8p5ABHKofJc69pmthPRFaowH9cz7b4wBdr45nD9yW3n5wmmAGAorNORPO2oD8fx1b7Ch4UucRtocG7TVoD8q8xePkXjqmELFjL3powas7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk>
> - get our latest news & media coverage
>
> http://www.technology.ie
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-Fmr9Q1_uNxFISl4UXNQGJAa4ABDSoMKKJoH4LBI6dPDpw1IcPIW2UD6KmY-khZffkUgGyGTLPU0VW-nWld8z7P0H2Ru_lA2gyfCIuoaN7WmFU6IRQ9AVVBKNMpsRsxQkxp27qp4b1vr0Nu7xAxlXjinmqCYcWDyv6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc>
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbdh-ZFyKYiMOesCOSW0IbP_Hk74wcQMPR4LFdtPIo3qwpdVxkGjxnPEF73YlWOioKWfm0ASY6v7enF3zKmqddqH2G4dXIbPg_PVqGwzzZzhWQxKSK2MKPyc4QXazyYJjS7H_X2JdIq2B8eAZeCDmgPBWH09Ix-VujUi5pHJeE_GXWIlFrE4TTH0hP08WIPWYQvhY>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> 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"
> *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
> <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 <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> --
>
> _________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150430/0426155c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list