Karl, you wrote: "How this ties into SSL certificates and how to prevent it from becoming yet another Verisign dominated market (I don't foresee these licenses as being available for free) are matters that I have not thought about." Agree. The challenge is to create something useful that's not a clone of Verisign or TrustE or, for that matter, VIPPS for the pharmacy community or HON for health sites. Recent history is littered with failed (or spoofed) seals; businesses often complain they cost too much, and research I've done for consumer orgs says they don't really notice or understand them, though that was almost eight years ago now. But those things shouldn't stop a few smart people with a bit of capital. -----Original Message-----

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> Sent: Dec 15, 2009 1:27 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]

On 12/15/2009 09:34 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:

...

You wrote:

"If you want to create a system of internet business licenses, feel free to propose it."

Good idea.

Horray! Out of argument comes agreement. Now we have something on which we can go forward.

I *do* support the idea that there be some sort of internet business license that is coupled to an obligation to have real and meaningful information about who or what is behind the business, where it legally exists, and how it may be contacted for both informal and formal communications.

To me that would vastly clarify the issue of whois privacy and make it easier to define the privacy rights and disclosure obligations, if any, of individuals who are not also acting in a business capacity versus the obligations of people and aggregate entities that are.

There are, of course, a few nits - for example, some things that some countries treat as religious bodies others treat as commercial cults. (I suspect that we all know who I am referring to.)

I don't see the need for there to be a single entity that issues these licenses, not does it have to be a governmental body. And I believe that ICANN's role would not be that of a licensor but rather to base its whois policy on whether one has a license or not from a recognized authority. (We can foresee that there will be fights over who gets that nod of recognition.)

I do have concern that there are those, such as the pharmacies you note, who may be scofflaws and simply not obtain such a license from wherever such licenses might be obtained.

On the other hand, I see a pressure that could coerce people to engage with various business license system - I can readily imagine web browser plugins that check the various license databases and put up a warning marker, much as they already do for un-rooted SSL certificates and passwords over non-HTTPS connections, when someone is interacting with a website. Doing this so that it isn't as heavy handed as, for instance, Firefox handling of non-rooted certificates, might take some inventive thinking.

How this ties into SSL certificates and how to prevent it from becoming yet another Verisign dominated market (I don't foresee these licenses as being available for free) are matters that I have not thought about.

--karl--

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org