[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement

[Kathy Kleiman]

Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All,
Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the 
Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as 
it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published 
version.

I include a pasted version below for easy reading.
Best,
Kathy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members 
of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group


We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, *Specific Topics on 
which there is currently no consensus within the WG*, of this PPSAI 
Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete.There are a number of 
topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which 
need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed.

For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and 
discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see 
Section 1.3.3 written.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within 
the WG*

1.3.3.1 REVEAL

The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key 
details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim 
Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the 
WG has not reached consensus. These include:

-What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal 
Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current 
recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?

-Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a 
Reveal Request to a 3^rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt 
reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid 
unnecessary and time-consuming appeals?(Note: a Request for 
Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has 
agreed to by consensus.)

-What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged 
to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for 
maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or 
trademark infringement allegation?

-How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law 
Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain 
name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes 
deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act 
across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and 
racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, 
Interpol Constitution]

  Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.

1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW

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[1] <#_ftn1>[1], 
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. [1]

*Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives 
are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking 
privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political 
groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations 
committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and 
publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their 
representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere 
collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status 
from “non-commercial” to commercial. Others noted that “non-profit” 
status is limited to only a few countries. *

*Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses 
(including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial 
transactions through 3^rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, 
and thus /are not processing the financial transactions directly/. 
Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach 
the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for 
this reason. *

*Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far 
beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws – some 
of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined 
and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany).***

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.”

This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and 
has not reached consensus as others submitted that:

"Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is 
not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for 
privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against 
vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who 
wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the 
Internet.

Input requested on the full issues, including questions below:

·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?

·Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate 
and the proper province of national law?


------------------------------------------------------------------------

<#_ftnref1>[1]The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically 
acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate 
interests, both commercial and non-commercial.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/60eeae87/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Important Supplemental Statement on 1.3.3.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150430/60eeae87/ImportantSupplementalStatementon1.3.3-0001.doc>