I do have concerns about anonomity in funds solicitation sites. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:02:27 To: <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; <abrams@google.com> Cc: <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Yes, but that's not entirely Andy's point, Bill. Andy first suggested we allow privacy protections for a website that solicited donations. Do BC members believe that donation-soliciting sites should be eligible for privacy/proxy services? As Andy notes, donors are often fooled by sites that pretend to be a reputable group helping with an emergency. The Red Cross/Red Crescent has talked about this at ICANN before. Should we really be recommending that ICANN allow privacy/proxy services for any site that solicits donations, as opposed to payments for services/goods/ads? Please read (and react) to the text proposed for this section (page 2, re-attached for your convenience), because the discussion thread sometimes tells only half the story. From: <Smith>, Bill <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM To: Andy Abrams <abrams@google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse. On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Andy Abrams" <abrams@google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > wrote: Hi Steve, We really appreciate your work on this document and your efforts to capture the discussions from last week. Our only minor follow-up comment relates to the use of the term "donations" in the first sentence of "Eligibility for Protected Registration." Per our previous comment, I think there are some issues with including "donations" as a per se reason to disqualify one from taking advantage of privacy/proxy services, given the frequent connection between donations and political or other free speech. With that said, I recognize that there is value in preventing a specific abuse relating to donations, namely, charity scams that solicit money. Perhaps we can reach a compromise by removing the term from the sentence, but by broadening the second clause in the sentence to include other abuses beyond IP infringement, including phishing, malware, financial scams, etc. We'd love to hear others' views on this point. Best, Andy and Aparna On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > wrote: As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-...> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs> ) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.pd...> ) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%20...> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%20201...> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>