[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Holly Raiche
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Sep 21 23:53:44 UTC 2015
I should point out that many of us represent lots of other people as well. For example, ISOC Chapter members represent the close to 200 chapters - each with large memberships. Or personally, I also represent a peak Australian telecommunications consumer group with over 100 members - with those members as organisations representing, again, so many more people. Or consider the vast number of registrars represented by just a few working group members. We all represent different stakeholders. So please, let’s stop that discussion.
At issue is the fact that there is no consensus even on definitions - we can’t even agree on what it is we do/don’t want barred. Taking Kathy’s point (and Phil and Hames and…) there is no consensus on the most basic starting point on this issue.
I must be an apology for this meeting, but am comforted by the many WG members who share my concern with the suggestion that the issue of restricting use of p/p providers by (undefined - commercial/financial ???) should be further discussed
Holly
On 22 Sep 2015, at 4:42 am, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> And the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner wrote asking us not to restrict access to proxy/privacy registrations. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is "where is there consensus?" and there is no consensus to move forward on any type of differentiation of proxy/privacy registrations - now or in the future.
>
>
> On 9/21/2015 1:23 PM, Terri Stumme wrote:
>> Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>> Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
>>
>>
>> While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
>>
>>
>> Kiran
>>
>>
>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>
>> Policy Counselor
>>
>> MarkMonitor
>>
>> 415.222.8318 (t)
>>
>> 415.419.9138 (m)
>>
>> www.markmonitor.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
>>
>>
>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
>>
>> Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Victoria Sheckler
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM
>> To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
>>
>>
>> Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
>>
>>
>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM
>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
>>
>>
>> +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
>>
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>> On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
>>
>>
>> Further, as regards this paragraph—
>>
>> The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added)
>>
>>
>>
>> -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>
>> Virtualaw LLC
>>
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>
>> Suite 1050
>>
>> Washington, DC 20004
>>
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>
>>
>>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM
>> To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
>>
>>
>> I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
>>
>>
>> If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>>
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>>
>>
>> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon
>> Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34
>> To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
>>
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong
>> Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21
>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
>>
>>
>> Dear WG members,
>>
>>
>> Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
>>
>>
>> The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
>>
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> Mary Wong
>>
>> Senior Policy Director
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Terri Stumme
>> Intelligence Analyst
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150922/f2c51d8a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list