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…
I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse.
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