[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Apr 30 23:18:22 UTC 2015
I will leave it to Kathy to respond, John, except to say that
unfortunately our typo edits crossed in the rush to get this out by the
deadline last night. A deadline is, I presume, a deadline, one does not
get to put a new version in the next day. (If I misunderstand ICANN
procedures, I am hoping Mary will be helpful as always and enlighten me:)).
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-05-01 7:09, John Horton wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers
> /and/ seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers /or/ seniors"? I
> think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to
> be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can
> certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent
> is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are
> (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based
> businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors,
> irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might
> be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
>
> Thanks!
>
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
>
>
> *FollowLegitScript*: 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
> 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]
> <#14d0c268aac32126__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?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <#14d0c268aac32126__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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150501/bdbf797b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list