April 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Compilation of P/P provider responses
by Mary Wong Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear WG members, Please find attached a document that staff has compiled of P/P provider responses to the 5 questions posed by the WG chairs to the group after the call last week, as follows: 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful? 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or omitted any response that you may have sent (for which I offer my apologies!). If you have not yet provided a response and are in a position to do so, or if you¹d like to add to a response you¹d provided previously, please send it along and I¹ll make sure it gets added to this document. Finally, please note that certain actual provider terms of service obtained from a sample of providers had previously been compiled as part of the draft template for this Category F, so that may also be helpful these are available on the WG wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/QwbxAg. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

9 11

Our Statement
by Kathy Kleiman May 3, 2015

May 3, 2015

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] <#_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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <#_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.

14 34

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Statement in Support of Transactional Distinction
by James Gannon April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

I hope that we can agree that a desire to present a balanced viewpoint of the deliberations of a PDP is certainly not 'obstructionist bullshit', we may differ on what that viewpoint is but surely we are all working to a common goal here? Or am I naive in my approach to this? We are all supposed to be working for the best interest of Internet users according to https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en it even specifically calls it out: >Act in a reasonable, objective and informed manner when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment >based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an >individual might owe their appointment. >Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and >seek to understand their points of view. >Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy >development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. This is my first PDP, as I am still a newcomer to ICANN, so maybe I have not gotten weary in my approach to these things but I stand by my conviction that we are all here for the common good and feel that we should be attempting to work with each other and not against each other. And I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that. I'm done for today. -James -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:49 PM To: James Gannon Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Statement in Support of Transactional Distinction Please don't clutter my inbox with private messages that have no value in advancing the goal of including a fair representation of all viewpoints. If you have something to say, say it on the list. I don't have time for this obstructionist bullshit, and I have no desire to keep it civil when you and others are wasting my time. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > On Apr 30, 2015, at 10:46 AM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Kiran I have no issue with you including a statement, or interest in 'silencing' your right to do so, I just ask that it be clear that it's a statement of an individual not of the WG. > Let's keep things civil and try and work together to get this over the hill. > > -James > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:44 PM > To: James Gannon > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Statement in Support of Transactional Distinction > > Apologies for your intent? To silence opposition? Yeah... No thanks. > > K > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 10:42 AM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: >> >> Sent a clarification there just missed a word, my mistake, the intent of the message stands. >> >> Thanks and apologies >> >> -James >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:41 PM >> To: James Gannon >> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; mary.wong(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Statement in Support of Transactional >> Distinction >> >> Any single member of the wg can submit. There is not (and was not) time to solicit formal approval from an SG. Also, membership in an SG/AC/C is not a prerequisite to participation in a wg. >> >> K >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 10:39 AM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: >> >> Sorry but my understanding is that accompanying statements should be on behalf of a group (Be it AC/SO/Constituency) and not deem to speak on behalf of the group. >> This statement will be highly confusing to the public as it makes it appear that the PPSAI WG endorses its contents. >> >> -James >> >> From: >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i >> cann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:10 PM >> To: Metalitz, Steven; mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Statement in Support of Transactional >> Distinction >> >> Please include the attached statement in support of the transactional distinction. It was prepared by a number of the proponents of this provision. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Best, >> >> Kiran >> >> From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:28 AM >> To: Kiran Malancharuvil >> Cc: Graeme Bunton; >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >> 1.3.3 >> >> Kiran, >> >> Of course you (and any other member of the WG) can submit a separate statement today and can include in it whatever you wish. We have asked that statements be limited to 1-2 pages if at all possible. >> >> Steve >> >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:26 PM >> To: Metalitz, Steven >> Cc: Graeme Bunton; >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >> 1.3.3 >> >> Steve, >> >> I'm not sure I understand what is being proposed here. >> >> Are we still able to submit our statement (the deadline is today)? Are we allowed to link to the white paper in our statement? >> >> What links are to be provided? Just a link to the mailing list archive and call transcripts? That would not be appropriate. Asking folks to sort through the emails/calls looking for relevant information means that it will be essentially buried and inaccessible. >> >> K >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com%3cmailto:met@msk.com>>> wrote: >> >> Graeme and I have asked staff to insert a footnote in this section, providing links to the extensive discussions of the topic in WG meetings (telephonic and face to face) and on the mailing list, as background for the public. >> >> Steve >> >> From: >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@i >> cann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsa >> i-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org>> >> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme >> Bunton >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:14 AM >> To: >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >> 1.3.3 >> >> Steve, myself and staff are discussing how to proceed while ensuring that balance is maintained. >> Thank you all for your contributions. >> >> Graeme >>> On 2015-04-30 11:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> So let me get this very very clear, as i am new to the process. >>> 1. The research report you offered was sent to the list. >>> 2. It has never been part of the record. >>> 3. You wish to see it added now, April 30th, 23:58 KST. >>> 4, You are telling me I could have done the same thing. >>> 5. I have Exactly how much time to submit a minority report in order >>> to comply with the deadline of April 30th? >>> >>> Thanks for the clarifications. >>> Stephanie >>> >>>> On 2015-04-30 23:52, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >>>> Stephanie, >>>> >>>> You had ample opportunity to prepare and present a white paper of >>>> your own. >>>> >>>> It was not unsolicited, as at any time, members of the group are >>>> welcome and encouraged to present their views on the matter under >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> Are you really saying that a well researched policy position and a >>>> presentation of that research is NOT meant to be a part of the PDP >>>> process? I really do not think that it the case. >>>> >>>> I know that you object to the position that the white paper >>>> explains, but unless there is a concrete prohibition on linking to >>>> it (staff?) it needs to be included, as we have every right to >>>> present the complex legal argument behind our position. >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>> <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> With great respect to Kiran and to the law firm that compiled the >>>>> "white paper", I objected at the time and there was no indication >>>>> that we accepted the white paper in our discussions, other than to >>>>> say thanks. I would object strenuously to it being included. That >>>>> was a totally unsolicited contribution from parties wishing to >>>>> advance their case. You cannot attach that paper, without giving >>>>> those on the other side an opportunity to counter it with another >>>>> white paper. Frankly, the PDP process is not supposed to be about >>>>> dualling unsolicited white papers. IF we need to have research >>>>> done, we have to agree on what needs to be done if it is to be >>>>> attached to the official call for comments. I don't wish to be >>>>> ungracious, but the paper should not be added. >>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-04-30 23:34, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >>>>>> It is a recommendation for a policy/best practice from a portion >>>>>> of the group. >>>>>> >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:33 AM, James Gannon >>>>>>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless we are suggesting that the whitepaper is consensus policy >>>>>>> or best practice it does not fall under that category. We are >>>>>>> presenting our policy recommendation already, which is the work >>>>>>> product of the group >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:31 PM >>>>>>> To: James Gannon >>>>>>> Cc: Mary Wong; PPSAI >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recommendations for policies, guidelines, best practices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:29 AM, James Gannon >>>>>>>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting from the PDP Manual, there seems to be strong guidelines >>>>>>>> of what goes out with the Initial Report: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After collection and review of information, the PDP Team and >>>>>>>>> Staff are responsible for producing an Initial Report. The >>>>>>>>> Initial Report should include the following elements: >>>>>>>>> * Compilation of Stakeholder Group and Constituency Statements >>>>>>>>> * Compilation of any statements received from any ICANN >>>>>>>>> Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee >>>>>>>>> * Recommendations for policies, guidelines, best practices or >>>>>>>>> other proposals to address the issue >>>>>>>>> * Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations >>>>>>>>> presented in the Initial Report >>>>>>>>> * Information regarding the members of the PDP Team, such as >>>>>>>>> the attendance records, Statements of Interest, etc. >>>>>>>>> * A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the >>>>>>>>> proposed recommendations, could consider areas such as >>>>>>>>> economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, >>>>>>>>> scalability and feasibility >>>>>>>> I don't see where in that framework the whitepaper would sit. I >>>>>>>> would welcome others thoughts on this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> ces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailt >>>>>>>> o :gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> >>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran >>>>>>>> Malancharuvil >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:09 PM >>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong >>>>>>>> Cc: PPSAI >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and >>>>>>>> Section >>>>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mary, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since one side of this issue prepared a lengthy legal review to >>>>>>>> address this question, I would request that that white paper be >>>>>>>> included in the reference materials for the public comment. >>>>>>>> Since public comment is meant to "resolve" this issue, >>>>>>>> commenters need all of the information. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not just down to feasibility of self-declaration at >>>>>>>> registration (which frankly, many of us see as a cop out since >>>>>>>> it's already done in some TLDs), but also legality. >>>>>>>> Not trying to re-open the debate, but please, let's make sure >>>>>>>> the community understands the various points and the background. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Mary Wong >>>>>>>> <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To add to Stephanie's note that this specific issue - whether >>>>>>>> registrants of domain names actively used for commercial >>>>>>>> transactions ought to be disallowed from using P/P services - >>>>>>>> had been discussed at some length by the WG: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that this part of the Initial Report draws heavily >>>>>>>> on the detailed WG template for Charter Category C that was the >>>>>>>> basis for the WG's deliberations on this topic. That template >>>>>>>> contains lengthy descriptions of what had previously been termed >>>>>>>> the majority and minority positions on the WG's answer to this >>>>>>>> specific issue. As part of the WG's deliberations - which took >>>>>>>> place primarily between April and June 2014 - the more specific >>>>>>>> formulation of "transactional" to describe the sort of >>>>>>>> commercial (i.e. Involving financial transactions) activities >>>>>>>> that were being discussed was included in the language. All the >>>>>>>> templates and suggested formulations discussed by the WG are >>>>>>>> recorded and published on the WG wiki. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The WG ultimately agreed to retain the two positions in the >>>>>>>> Initial Report and to revisit the question during its review of >>>>>>>> the public comments received. As noted previously, the WG's >>>>>>>> views were presented to the community in London in June 2014 and >>>>>>>> again in Los Angeles in October 2014. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore, the three questions in Section 1.3.3 of the Executive >>>>>>>> Summary only go toward soliciting community input on this single >>>>>>>> issue. They were not intended to represent a view of any "side" >>>>>>>> in the WG with regard to this matter. If the WG prefers, we can >>>>>>>> add a sentence to clarify and specify the reason for the >>>>>>>> questions in Section 1.3.3. Fundamentally, the idea is that >>>>>>>> public comments will facilitate the WG's eventual resolution of >>>>>>>> this issue as part of its preparation of the Final Report. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We hope this reminder of the background is of assistance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> Mary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mary Wong >>>>>>>> Senior Policy Director >>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>>>>>> Email: >>>>>>>> mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@ >>>>>>>> i >>>>>>>> cann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org >>>>>>>> % >>>>>>>> 3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmail >>>>>>>> t >>>>>>>> o:mary.wong@icann.org>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail. >>>>>>>> u >>>>>>>> toronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:ste >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> hanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoro >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> to.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stepha >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> ie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoron >>>>>>>> t >>>>>>>> o.ca>>>> >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20 >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3e>" >>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org< >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> ailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ica >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> n.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso- >>>>>>>> p psai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org>>>>, James Gannon >>>>>>>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:j >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> mes@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:ja >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> es@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:j >>>>>>>> a mes@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>>>, >>>>>>>> Michele Blacknight >>>>>>>> <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com<mailto:mic >>>>>>>> h >>>>>>>> ele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michel >>>>>>>> e >>>>>>>> @blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele >>>>>>>> @ blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and >>>>>>>> Section >>>>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, prior to you joining the group, we had discussed this at >>>>>>>> some length. IN fact, I really thought that the many reasons why >>>>>>>> sorting out the purpose of a registration is problematic had >>>>>>>> buried this debate, but apparently not. Some of the issues >>>>>>>> raised, according to my recollection were the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * names are registered prior to decisions about content >>>>>>>> * content changes over time >>>>>>>> * most countries regulate e-commerce in some fashion, so that >>>>>>>> website commercial activity does not have to be regulated by >>>>>>>> ICANN >>>>>>>> * ICANN should not be in the business of regulating content in >>>>>>>> the first place (and sorting out who is extracting a material >>>>>>>> consideration from a website in order to deny them the ability >>>>>>>> to use a proxy registration is certainly a form of regulation) >>>>>>>> * definitions of commercial activity vary widely around the >>>>>>>> world >>>>>>>> * bad actors will not declare, registrars cannot police this >>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>> * criminal prosecution is not dependent on WHOIS information >>>>>>>> * if this is really about the ability to detect market >>>>>>>> information, ICANN should not be in the business of making >>>>>>>> registrant information available for market purposes, it does it >>>>>>>> for security and stability. >>>>>>>> * contactability remains, regardless of which registrant info >>>>>>>> appears in WHOIS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am planning to reformulate these into questions to match the >>>>>>>> questions on the other side, suggestions welcome. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>> On 2015-04-30 16:24, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>>> I don't see this as asking providers to enforce anything similar >>>>>>>> to other questions when registering a domain, it's a >>>>>>>> self-reported assessment. All it does is add an additional >>>>>>>> branch to the decision tree for eligibility, which will already >>>>>>>> be there to determine eligibility due to the other reasons listed below. >>>>>>>> The registrant is asked will you be processing financial >>>>>>>> transactions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd party>Yes>Eligible for P/P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not asking registrars to enforce law but to see if a more >>>>>>>> finely grained eligibility process can be enacted. Or at least >>>>>>>> is there is public support for more granularity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -James >>>>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>>>> [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:17 AM >>>>>>>> To: James Gannon; Graeme Bunton; PPSAI >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and >>>>>>>> Section >>>>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As a registrar or PP service provider how am I meant to assess this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It doesn't scale >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Seriously. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If, for example, there is an Irish operated website that is not >>>>>>>> complying with Irish law then it would be up to the ODCE >>>>>>>> (http://www.odce.ie/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xh >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> x-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDKActStEmX7ndjfqnEIgUMkdhXCAGe_aALV >>>>>>>> o >>>>>>>> 69T0irIiCOftGW0RRkFeeJXP_SQ_bxxN5c9ZWrJzjnfSpDUeI4UjuT2dsrtgXox- >>>>>>>> J >>>>>>>> siUyGsBvbDhSHcf2gH3gqSI2YwvUnORJuOhanPP2uCSQp3bey2BqQKbirhovyP6h >>>>>>>> D >>>>>>>> iunUi2Ilg><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM >>>>>>>> iunUi2Ilg>4 >>>>>>>> mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDKActStEmX7ndjfqnEIgUMkdhXCAGe_aALVo69T0irIiC >>>>>>>> O >>>>>>>> ftGW0RRkFeeJXP_SQ_bxxN5c9ZWrJzjnfSpDUeI4UjuT2dsrtgXox-JsiUyGsBvb >>>>>>>> D >>>>>>>> hSHcf2gH3gqSI2YwvUnORJuOhanPP2uCSQp3bey2BqQKbirhovyP6hDiunUi2Ilg >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/4lNzdG4V_LBmiovLA6p9BZsfLgWW8I >>>>>>>> Z >>>>>>>> SZ8mzFYFSEGMRVcYO2zG2wkLeacYjtsSRf_sSF--BDXNIv1JkaSjK7YDkV7Wh91A >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>> XWzAHM8Zc7w5foIbeKPzTB9Jb3n8Rk3oYWdB4A_Jt2ltxZR7APcRWG0IyDnycx5V >>>>>>>> o >>>>>>>> J08erpju3GxLxy1dILiNWX72a25S9Yyrm1Fh6eWqHxtrhsqZmkrRym4-JZgjGuT2 >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> ptP-Tf0ChXEp9Oy2VafY---UlWYnIhutuM8Qeql3uCVIJEvhilzgK06gmUWfWZUI >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> 09JAcmXc-w5egvrI21Srqo5zbQdnsPIl2yRBRiJy4YZ-h-c7WM_Y0EMYghq1BrKe >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>> dTU94YwRb9V0rLPfV6BN36pbf5NyooXX3sVlMzjnI4nh6u0IpcQrhd1oL7F3QAsO >>>>>>>> 8 >>>>>>>> MVGCWywmASjHPWQatBHt4UH0ihcq6sfPIxUCQHG8ffuWeD1uJ8KMuVubzQxqF8Kn >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> hpmA_Th65ShbIpsv0BqAqVZ9ZNvoP627Jn5avKDQthQYCUxg>>) to enforce >>>>>>>> whatever needs enforcing, as it would be up to the DPA to >>>>>>>> enforce any issues around data privacy etc., etc., >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attempting to force registrars and PP providers to make these >>>>>>>> kind of evaluations is not going to work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Issues like PCI-DSS compliance are matters that should be dealt >>>>>>>> with by the DPA and the banks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Forcing registrars and PP providers to start getting involved in >>>>>>>> that kind of assessment isn't viable >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>> http://www.blacknight.host/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0 >>>>>>>> Q >>>>>>>> iXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh-J4kMLvQtMGZn5lKnoQO8ikZnQ >>>>>>>> i >>>>>>>> TNL6FLbYD67s4dF-tWj2IbgtPVbZIrmLhFiT8cZvRoXUKLem6cyG8n3JE6-tis8t >>>>>>>> E >>>>>>>> kBPwKkOuqFU7azbPzFSZPBE0XjNt1o6W5MAy5yWOEr-3QLGcTYMC5oDDDwuftYuz >>>>>>>> 9 >>>>>>>> pHDOyvEieReE36N1UxTeWXBI__3g1_xmHN4S0><https://protect-us.mimeca >>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>> t.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh-J4kMLvQtMGZn5l >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> noQO8ikZnQiTNL6FLbYD67s4dF-tWj2IbgtPVbZIrmLhFiT8cZvRoXUKLem6cyG8 >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> 3JE6-tis8tEkBPwKkOuqFU7azbPzFSZPBE0XjNt1o6W5MAy5yWOEr-3QLGcTYMC5 >>>>>>>> o >>>>>>>> DDDwuftYuz9pHDOyvEieReE36N1UxTeWXBI__3g1_xmHN4S0<https://protect >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> us.mimecast.com/r/l1oPubFTSPL9jkLJYE-i_s_cVzwLdAYnEJLnyze4qcofGb >>>>>>>> V >>>>>>>> p0De8ZHa2UK3gf0UhGuOGUKJQPGBL8lrGKGKjds5fxrj5NlbVvg9BxM3Opb82UmP >>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>> znna5WJ9PwzhPNi5xrpUMWyCGaWGfCaocAES27yfoPTWBDpFvCjuT5lto5W4Svdm >>>>>>>> L >>>>>>>> IEzA858Pp4koY144mx4sCSiYqVF1oSQjBUoaxLy4o0qUijmXox-r3SZwQHhehoe2 >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> fdF04TqxWWiSTMxwITNDqt5fEHRfaCHadDi3x8h2yaBwI4D9yYpnjwhcylZi_w_t >>>>>>>> U >>>>>>>> 7osnBvi4lhetcT-sBjy_UxmIawTToN10n7w-_l-0AzyR-eFJd-kg218qDM3-LAJN >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> PlGoBQ7sXSeedCLC_8MZKx2jkESGtfItjyfLdRPa4i03KBw0P7yCMwqaaG83u4Jp >>>>>>>> w >>>>>>>> uR-pJjmqEhj_IYYcrKA-B6fCjuTzUuEUnmzG5IvmmhU4_FC5JETN9UcdPuTdmsRn >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> IgbqDMivZgyLKNiyUi2PbzBwz2O4AmjzBgrFeG-75fubDeaQQBFnSdlGYaje4umI >>>>>>>> N >>>>>>>> -mXeQ2jP1>> >>>>>>>> http://blog.blacknight.com/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl >>>>>>>> 1 >>>>>>>> MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wVhCgpAj6NRi9Y8zMxa9MvTN2vhD >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> EWNpvAhObo3t9Jl-Kh7ki557bXwOMPGhz-Up4X8e1Q8UR-DF0d4jYhrGpb0LrotD >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> 0UduC3QQRYUJ24nEnbyayh-GPs3hk77LhEpDwYrSf4v_RqmohacWFuO-pMc6Ap8I >>>>>>>> 9 >>>>>>>> JulleUf0h9FbW-MHMc1xlq8F7WXPVnekaa_Tg><https://protect-us.mimeca >>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>> t.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wVhCgpAj6NRi9Y8zM >>>>>>>> x >>>>>>>> a9MvTN2vhD-EWNpvAhObo3t9Jl-Kh7ki557bXwOMPGhz-Up4X8e1Q8UR-DF0d4jY >>>>>>>> h >>>>>>>> rGpb0LrotD50UduC3QQRYUJ24nEnbyayh-GPs3hk77LhEpDwYrSf4v_RqmohacWF >>>>>>>> u >>>>>>>> O-pMc6Ap8I9JulleUf0h9FbW-MHMc1xlq8F7WXPVnekaa_Tg<https://protect >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> us.mimecast.com/r/4W4r20DAZy2h6dpYp2Tzq7FTSQAmTYs1vfAQIkdyfvJMDu >>>>>>>> 0 >>>>>>>> tcKmiKOwsAOTvBSlLTi59FHgM_on9QsvD9CudMpRih0I6gjXq2A4dY6O3q-el3Lc >>>>>>>> y >>>>>>>> PasQf5tNiiIjFSoLe4-RGWuQcN2f9jXygxx1wp1E3sv8txhcCC1UoD9h6Kzi2vgT >>>>>>>> 9 >>>>>>>> SkXvpFHliyZIF2T31a9K0Lwnl55R94GruRYOcDjbX7Gf_cm6XnmW7UXZuI--pr5K >>>>>>>> L >>>>>>>> NxaqYBbS75-hjmGoQi0uOfRwccxXRwvyYLDmdbReZa5H9CpX_Ci4xt8r9IL23kJl >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> OZSvO7l-a0YReANZnxal2lCMTQxwhNiLimdPtU5VOy2Ioa22r1qJ3jY-4L6N9nCH >>>>>>>> 8 >>>>>>>> stI-uLtVpkYUPc3RvOiu_yOfgfI1l70U4w-qK81Jaixy9HpNT1Ux06f6VAWKbEky >>>>>>>> S >>>>>>>> x61Yb-Y6D7Eu4QgIjDhJlsJsub-Psbz12zynvHmip6LmH0FyLQpmZ8NhSxHFxm3Y >>>>>>>> U >>>>>>>> X03mPL3m6Jw4wsHiFDp8mOLyq83OvhEiG8-KJrVmORyqJbvdaAGpN_hwtrXjLL30 >>>>>>>> r >>>>>>>> Kl_G8yzmQ>> >>>>>>>> http://www.blacknight.press<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-M >>>>>>>> R >>>>>>>> GGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFnhsCzIT83jwX24BSxN_VMtJYpUg >>>>>>>> k >>>>>>>> SGF-Qst71LuBVQLY87bs-vewJiEDX8p5ABHKofJc69pmthPRFaowH9cz7b4wBdr4 >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> nD9yW3n5wmmAGAorNORPO2oD8fx1b7Ch4UucRtocG7TVoD8q8xePkXjqmELFjL3p >>>>>>>> o >>>>>>>> was7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk><https://protect-us.mimeca >>>>>>>> was7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk>s >>>>>>>> t.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFnhsCzIT83jwX24BS >>>>>>>> x >>>>>>>> N_VMtJYpUgkSGF-Qst71LuBVQLY87bs-vewJiEDX8p5ABHKofJc69pmthPRFaowH >>>>>>>> 9 >>>>>>>> cz7b4wBdr45nD9yW3n5wmmAGAorNORPO2oD8fx1b7Ch4UucRtocG7TVoD8q8xePk >>>>>>>> X >>>>>>>> jqmELFjL3powas7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk<https://protect >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> us.mimecast.com/r/zPN5CjAJdRJWk2B85RfU9bzzLTFtJr4NLfR-96KjMGyFiG >>>>>>>> k >>>>>>>> nSAd74cCJ9GvA9kaD-vS8gui8v0NBYOirWVK2xaxEySYrhl2eJjehgZhqe6EM2RO >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> f-ga40yWnn5xy-c-63NhmIm1zcBNoKTSYjeNP-JoK3ZTuo9fcXf-gjUC0geZ0i9l >>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>> qAcPsy8IEGy_8nCJaqJ0jLbzqGABaam2zacCALcPGMdo7ZbSmL1Gxs2K3bztp9EW >>>>>>>> X >>>>>>>> ROi2v6xvmD3GvF30-zcbF_W2yoR57XnsOemzhLSFe1TvxKwMC7qpk2ZcuWiNHdc6 >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> pLVyFrtCoJSOyZmRX5XwWUrqwrs3DfQJOrN3MfKD1mb52hx-puFq3DmM-8xYWTvo >>>>>>>> y >>>>>>>> idluw_-iyz10fHE4jnJ8a0bNMzEjJsQlG80jFpqfalyc8sayVT7t6qzyZudj7E8- >>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>> 7SeBCUbqzsbck6ckMrMqVZlZpG7MELOH-otpZvr-Y8ELA8omOG7Jx60KL9ssVcKQ >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> EEIJ2zoKuO-w1CvJ6aO838upI02RQnBFQHaWAg2HIAC4FUg-N8MfLY-WEjSnVXkh >>>>>>>> m i5PF3oy_h>> - get our latest news & media coverage >>>>>>>> http://www.technology.ie<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZN >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> iJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-Fmr9Q1_uNxFISl4UXNQGJAa4ABDSo >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>> KKJoH4LBI6dPDpw1IcPIW2UD6KmY-khZffkUgGyGTLPU0VW-nWld8z7P0H2Ru_lA >>>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>>> gyfCIuoaN7WmFU6IRQ9AVVBKNMpsRsxQkxp27qp4b1vr0Nu7xAxlXjinmqCYcWDy >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> 6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc><https://protect-us.mimecast. >>>>>>>> 6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc>c >>>>>>>> om/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-Fmr9Q1_uNxFISl4UXN >>>>>>>> Q >>>>>>>> GJAa4ABDSoMKKJoH4LBI6dPDpw1IcPIW2UD6KmY-khZffkUgGyGTLPU0VW-nWld8 >>>>>>>> z >>>>>>>> 7P0H2Ru_lA2gyfCIuoaN7WmFU6IRQ9AVVBKNMpsRsxQkxp27qp4b1vr0Nu7xAxlX >>>>>>>> j >>>>>>>> inmqCYcWDyv6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc<https://protect-us. >>>>>>>> mimecast.com/r/CUWs47OhCB2aa9RLj9Ftm3OqyHdbegkLXSOpMV8uBRbvwT8Hs >>>>>>>> S >>>>>>>> uNUBKuLqaFsB7wEKsfGHvZUVWYE-BMah9Ne8IWBG2s_bX5r7b_TJL__FuNOKKGwG >>>>>>>> L >>>>>>>> -8U1r4vABiKSmYEwflrHGjQyceV-8DAd_fT1NCFaQJTyaRS0syYAweeUF8-iRaju >>>>>>>> c >>>>>>>> VR2j2TBJBJdWPqQfVlJc9USo93NJROMUjbZ19wmQiF9AfNy9_OPxB3m0aLhvE0ZO >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> ciBDl5x4cBlLzPLm1Yjva9JRou5CLrxVpqUAX1aaGCqGi1UqaZErXONEpv4r0LDd >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> Xud_hwOHoD4gjKskjzkZoSqfXgfWeHDLtWlGygCxcKp2Gltk1vfrZVDQysBdb1iu >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> hpR7R8ptrBwXr-qekyrlGwPnvmJ4b1zktVIjl3VTNZEtfoSxFdDJDyRnwRQo7gPw >>>>>>>> r >>>>>>>> ON4tVFHPQQ6X3uw4CiOWAlwb2sGkEUkOj3bucsbxHpwc3Pq6O5ujbwB9uw08FQv2 >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> 5n3Cu_tw7LpdTxd1QMI8rfIRMqiFuB5vdiI-2hipGCXEpIXSbnB_h4aee2mjP129 >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> m7QevJ>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 >>>>>>>> 9183090 >>>>>>>> Social: >>>>>>>> http://mneylon.social<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99 >>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>> MvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbdh-ZFyKYiMOesCOSW0IbP_Hk74wcQMPR4 >>>>>>>> L >>>>>>>> FdtPIo3qwpdVxkGjxnPEF73YlWOioKWfm0ASY6v7enF3zKmqddqH2G4dXIbPg_PV >>>>>>>> q >>>>>>>> GwzzZzhWQxKSK2MKPyc4QXazyYJjS7H_X2JdIq2B8eAZeCDmgPBWH09Ix-VujUi5 >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> HJeE_GXWIlFrE4TTH0hP08WIPWYQvhY><https://protect-us.mimecast.com >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbdh-ZFyKYiMOesCOSW0IbP_ >>>>>>>> H >>>>>>>> k74wcQMPR4LFdtPIo3qwpdVxkGjxnPEF73YlWOioKWfm0ASY6v7enF3zKmqddqH2 >>>>>>>> G >>>>>>>> 4dXIbPg_PVqGwzzZzhWQxKSK2MKPyc4QXazyYJjS7H_X2JdIq2B8eAZeCDmgPBWH >>>>>>>> 0 >>>>>>>> 9Ix-VujUi5pHJeE_GXWIlFrE4TTH0hP08WIPWYQvhY<https://protect-us.mi >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> ecast.com/r/0oGY1mVf_smwKlCBVH2VOnpfmhsH1QKCI9PoPtiLiBYOkQKP5WYN >>>>>>>> b >>>>>>>> 14N4SlMX7ATkUU7bDnJB3KdSXOHn_F7Li19YrJbT2HfbkvMlX4QZXNtM-djZW8By >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> hcAivn1_ZLP2AfKbDLzRQmtzWdiif_JIJZ9hvfSwiUATjMrCjPDQ9T9eDIhS6VIc >>>>>>>> 7 >>>>>>>> PQoyGuTTPlSDtMYVcWwoJ07XRHLWmFbQ8FODMPVY-EM3fEmYldXDJy7Ny6i2n6RQ >>>>>>>> P >>>>>>>> 7Q6zU3B4jHg7VefC-bqS3GASQocWI-UUSAFU53eZEcCWcFa4-H1mi2LgFvtmsddI >>>>>>>> S >>>>>>>> 1K73ev9yE13XK_mNgM6r1AUH6sEzkQXKc_gSb71qAt70xEUBTorPTxPkG0FEkZBb >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> 6XlspCaqcxR4-6PzMMotyuWLBhZ15PH09fH4arj25zvTD6O-4WXLfkfHH8Iq7NAO >>>>>>>> U >>>>>>>> GOV8ifAdQt74uWvJWU8Kja_RDjE7Z9NhMhCAAQmWozknnPPWSRPnwheQYRgPrmVI >>>>>>>> 0 >>>>>>>> ZQt79ZlVbwiH7IioW4efxkCaQU3TOhOd_YjWWljTbAVTBWhbXPGl1CnbR12PBoP0 >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>> ZMr>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>>>>>>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: >>>>>>>> 370845 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: James Gannon >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 30 April 2015 07:45 >>>>>>>> To: Graeme Bunton, >>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3e>" >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and >>>>>>>> Section >>>>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would personally like to see if there is public traction for >>>>>>>> distinguishing between sites directly processing financial >>>>>>>> truncations and sites who use 3rd parties for processing >>>>>>>> financial transactions as this is a very important distinction. >>>>>>>> A simple and I hope non-controversial additional question to the >>>>>>>> ones below: >>>>>>>> If so, should domains which use a third party to process >>>>>>>> financial transactions (i.e Paypal, Stripe), and thus do not >>>>>>>> directly process financial information, be subject to the same >>>>>>>> restrictions? >>>>>>>> There are strong existing distinctions both in national laws and >>>>>>>> in regulations such as PCI-DSS between these two forms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -James Gannon >>>>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ppsai-pdp-wg-bou >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> ces(a)icann.org><mailto:ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gns >>>>>>>> o -ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> >>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme >>>>>>>> Bunton >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17 PM >>>>>>>> To: PPSAI >>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier >>>>>>>> today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen). The co-chairs and >>>>>>>> staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial >>>>>>>> Report, we recognize there is considerable support for extending >>>>>>>> the public comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 >>>>>>>> days on which we have all been planning. We are prepared to >>>>>>>> agree to this, but with the caveat that this will have >>>>>>>> repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work once public >>>>>>>> comments have been received. Specifically, if the public comment >>>>>>>> deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication >>>>>>>> date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least weekly calls >>>>>>>> throughout July and August, some of which may need to be more >>>>>>>> than an hour in length, to review these comments and move toward a Final Report. >>>>>>>> Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final >>>>>>>> Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin >>>>>>>> ICANN meeting. As was noted on the call today, many additional >>>>>>>> steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final >>>>>>>> Report before any new accreditati >>> on >>>>>> system can be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the >>>>>> expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of next year is >>>>>> already real. >>>>>>>> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG >>>>>>>> members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or >>>>>>>> additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for >>>>>>>> public comment next Monday, such statements need to be received >>>>>>>> by staff no later than Thursday, April 30. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to >>>>>>>> section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the >>>>>>>> call earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss >>>>>>>> fully. We agree that this section could benefit from some >>>>>>>> revision, but believe it should take the form of greater >>>>>>>> concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the >>>>>>>> divergent positions. Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be >>>>>>>> revised to read as follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> , 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the >>>>>>>> following >>>>>>>> questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * 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? >>>>>>>> * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of "commercial" >>>>>>>> or "transactional" to define those domains for which P/P service >>>>>>>> registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what should the >>>>>>>> definition(s) be?" >>>>>>>> * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data >>>>>>>> fields to be displayed as a result? >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Graeme Bunton >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Manager, Management Information Systems >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Manager, Public Policy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tucows Inc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> ailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ican >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> .org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<htt >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> s://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJT >>>>>>>> O >>>>>>>> suokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDj >>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>> 3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFP >>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>> mL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPK >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> gRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protec >>>>>>>> t >>>>>>>> -us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUo >>>>>>>> F >>>>>>>> WQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCd >>>>>>>> e >>>>>>>> 0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k >>>>>>>> 8 >>>>>>>> 8hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPr >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> RnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg<https://protect-us.mimecas >>>>>>>> t >>>>>>>> .com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_PtvDo7W >>>>>>>> f >>>>>>>> WJYT_YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl0toLP6bJpkzDTK3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiq >>>>>>>> u >>>>>>>> bExt6q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vymemagb7YNIBY9WQ1ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrB >>>>>>>> T >>>>>>>> Q5bn3eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ-aziLTklBEQieWlioi2gYnClBNYrEHFg >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> WWSEvgar2P-tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW-kuhn8kQ2mtOv5v6KvIjRrN8bV1DSkP >>>>>>>> e >>>>>>>> uNGC4pfFkeDmG__ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHeydqHXpPURbDoGJH4X1-XBOw9xyUQU >>>>>>>> H >>>>>>>> 2FxUzKjIYwzIsoWRAH-mtaFpnV-yPYzPFOpLczOu5V0S3wAh77gKBYS0Ims0rAmT >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> 4RALGvo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU05FXCxycKWSOlLj6vi9pO9hzfr_77ovw17c-o3KH >>>>>>>> H >>>>>>>> uMnCKx-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960KQ6y3mrSOt4DP_WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZgE7 >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> jC7-oKZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLCQIeslyoVS7lZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<m >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> ilto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ican >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> .org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp- >>>>>>>> w >>>>>>>> g@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-p >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> sai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org>>> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https:// >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> rotect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuok >>>>>>>> g >>>>>>>> r0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGF >>>>>>>> V >>>>>>>> t5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7a >>>>>>>> b >>>>>>>> ae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protect-us. >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> imecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuG >>>>>>>> c >>>>>>>> Ksc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_ >>>>>>>> B >>>>>>>> DY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvs >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> qURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_PtvDo7WfWJYT >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl0toLP6bJpkzDTK3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiqubExt >>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>> q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vymemagb7YNIBY9WQ1ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrBTQ5bn >>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>> eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ-aziLTklBEQieWlioi2gYnClBNYrEHFgvWWSE >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> gar2P-tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW-kuhn8kQ2mtOv5v6KvIjRrN8bV1DSkPeuNGC >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> pfFkeDmG__ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHeydqHXpPURbDoGJH4X1-XBOw9xyUQUH2FxU >>>>>>>> z >>>>>>>> KjIYwzIsoWRAH-mtaFpnV-yPYzPFOpLczOu5V0S3wAh77gKBYS0Ims0rAmTm4RAL >>>>>>>> G >>>>>>>> vo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU05FXCxycKWSOlLj6vi9pO9hzfr_77ovw17c-o3KHHuMnC >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> x-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960KQ6y3mrSOt4DP_WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZgE7-jC7- >>>>>>>> o KZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLCQIeslyoVS7lZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<m >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> ilto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@ican >>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>> .org>> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https:// >>>>>>>> p >>>>>>>> rotect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuok >>>>>>>> g >>>>>>>> r0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGF >>>>>>>> V >>>>>>>> t5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7a >>>>>>>> b >>>>>>>> ae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protect-us. >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> imecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuG >>>>>>>> c >>>>>>>> Ksc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_ >>>>>>>> B >>>>>>>> DY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvs >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> qURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_PtvDo7WfWJYT >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl0toLP6bJpkzDTK3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiqubExt >>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>> q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vymemagb7YNIBY9WQ1ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrBTQ5bn >>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>> eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ-aziLTklBEQieWlioi2gYnClBNYrEHFgvWWSE >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> gar2P-tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW-kuhn8kQ2mtOv5v6KvIjRrN8bV1DSkPeuNGC >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> pfFkeDmG__ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHeydqHXpPURbDoGJH4X1-XBOw9xyUQUH2FxU >>>>>>>> z >>>>>>>> KjIYwzIsoWRAH-mtaFpnV-yPYzPFOpLczOu5V0S3wAh77gKBYS0Ims0rAmTm4RAL >>>>>>>> G >>>>>>>> vo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU05FXCxycKWSOlLj6vi9pO9hzfr_77ovw17c-o3KHHuMnC >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> x-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960KQ6y3mrSOt4DP_WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZgE7-jC7- >>>>>>>> o KZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLCQIeslyoVS7lZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mai >>>>>> l >>>>>> to:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>> g >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://pr >>>>>> o >>>>>> tect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0u >>>>>> U >>>>>> oFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCd >>>>>> e >>>>>> 0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88 >>>>>> h >>>>>> H_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnv >>>>>> s >>>>>> IqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protect-us.mimecast.com >>>>>> / >>>>>> r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5C >>>>>> D >>>>>> UGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3Zs >>>>>> M >>>>>> EWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGc >>>>>> T >>>>>> oOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfS >>>>>> E >>>>>> _TxYg9ZhC-Fg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8 >>>>>> u >>>>>> 3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_PtvDo7WfWJYT_YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl >>>>>> 0 >>>>>> toLP6bJpkzDTK3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiqubExt6q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vyme >>>>>> m >>>>>> agb7YNIBY9WQ1ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrBTQ5bn3eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ >>>>>> - >>>>>> aziLTklBEQieWlioi2gYnClBNYrEHFgvWWSEvgar2P-tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW- >>>>>> k >>>>>> uhn8kQ2mtOv5v6KvIjRrN8bV1DSkPeuNGC4pfFkeDmG__ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHey >>>>>> d >>>>>> qHXpPURbDoGJH4X1-XBOw9xyUQUH2FxUzKjIYwzIsoWRAH-mtaFpnV-yPYzPFOpLcz >>>>>> O >>>>>> u5V0S3wAh77gKBYS0Ims0rAmTm4RALGvo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU05FXCxycKWSOlLj6 >>>>>> v >>>>>> i9pO9hzfr_77ovw17c-o3KHHuMnCKx-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960KQ6y3mrSOt4DP >>>>>> _ >>>>>> WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZgE7-jC7-oKZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLCQIeslyoVS7 >>>>>> l >>>>>> ZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mail >>>>> t >>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://pro >>>>> t >>>>> ect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUo >>>>> F >>>>> WQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0O >>>>> u >>>>> GcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_B >>>>> D >>>>> Y04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqUR >>>>> x >>>>> FUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4c >>>>> O >>>>> GJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f7 >>>>> 5 >>>>> FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubis >>>>> o >>>>> -WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYz >>>>> C >>>>> w4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC >>>>> - >>>>> Fg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2 >>>>> m >>>>> FXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_PtvDo7WfWJYT_YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl0toLP6bJpkzD >>>>> T >>>>> K3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiqubExt6q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vymemagb7YNIBY9WQ >>>>> 1 >>>>> ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrBTQ5bn3eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ-aziLTklBEQieW >>>>> l >>>>> ioi2gYnClBNYrEHFgvWWSEvgar2P-tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW-kuhn8kQ2mtOv5v6 >>>>> K >>>>> vIjRrN8bV1DSkPeuNGC4pfFkeDmG__ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHeydqHXpPURbDoGJH4X >>>>> 1 >>>>> -XBOw9xyUQUH2FxUzKjIYwzIsoWRAH-mtaFpnV-yPYzPFOpLczOu5V0S3wAh77gKBYS >>>>> 0 >>>>> Ims0rAmTm4RALGvo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU05FXCxycKWSOlLj6vi9pO9hzfr_77ovw17 >>>>> c >>>>> -o3KHHuMnCKx-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960KQ6y3mrSOt4DP_WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZ >>>>> g >>>>> E7-jC7-oKZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLCQIeslyoVS7lZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://prote >>> c >>> t-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQc >>> H >>> 4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc >>> 4 >>> syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHI >>> h >>> prEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWs >>> T >>> hNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBe >>> Z >>> DDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOium >>> i >>> 5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xf >>> N >>> JVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwN >>> u >>> JPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg<https://protect- >>> u >>> s.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_Pt >>> v >>> Do7WfWJYT_YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl0toLP6bJpkzDTK3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiq >>> u >>> bExt6q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vymemagb7YNIBY9WQ1ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrBTQ5bn >>> 3 >>> eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ-aziLTklBEQieWlioi2gYnClBNYrEHFgvWWSEvgar2 >>> P >>> -tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW-kuhn8kQ2mtOv5v6KvIjRrN8bV1DSkPeuNGC4pfFkeDmG_ >>> _ >>> ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHeydqHXpPURbDoGJH4X1-XBOw9xyUQUH2FxUzKjIYwzIsoWRAH- >>> m >>> taFpnV-yPYzPFOpLczOu5V0S3wAh77gKBYS0Ims0rAmTm4RALGvo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU >>> 0 >>> 5FXCxycKWSOlLj6vi9pO9hzfr_77ovw17c-o3KHHuMnCKx-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960 >>> K >>> Q6y3mrSOt4DP_WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZgE7-jC7-oKZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLC >>> Q >>> IeslyoVS7lZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >> >> -- >> _________________________ >> Graeme Bunton >> Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows >> Inc. >> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protec >> t-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH >> 4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4 >> syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIh >> prEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsT >> hNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZ >> DDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi >> 5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfN >> JVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNu >> JPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg<https://protect-u >> s.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo4CBlxqC8_Ptv >> Do7WfWJYT_YaNpXYz45ijCcYjA7oYYpLl0toLP6bJpkzDTK3R9OrjFh5nT4QkOopUtxiqu >> bExt6q7UZTuNoom_4ejyw2wpm9vymemagb7YNIBY9WQ1ySPRTD0g1HGkyw6BJZrBTQ5bn3 >> eb3Z2m63UxQvS6jFuhrBwNCteGQ-aziLTklBEQieWlioi2gYnClBNYrEHFgvWWSEvgar2P >> -tWJHPPeIwuO1U_utMPhVBW-kuhn8kQ2mtOv5v6KvIjRrN8bV1DSkPeuNGC4pfFkeDmG__ >> ztmWkRIOq5sGpyoEOJHeydqHXpPURbDoGJH4X1-XBOw9xyUQUH2FxUzKjIYwzIsoWRAH-m >> taFpnV-yPYzPFOpLczOu5V0S3wAh77gKBYS0Ims0rAmTm4RALGvo_wlPWZLAZZxcznxiU0 >> 5FXCxycKWSOlLj6vi9pO9hzfr_77ovw17c-o3KHHuMnCKx-PLdlg8F4Dlr-11-NMFS960K >> Q6y3mrSOt4DP_WEt8kbLW7HnKwQyhHZgE7-jC7-oKZvPXlL_lzz0NbUCv9P-sLtO35WLCQ >> IeslyoVS7lZahikA8xuNn1grSIZ>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protec >> t-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr0uUoFWQcH >> 4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0OuGcKsc4 >> syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04YcHIh >> prEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsT >> hNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg> >

5 6

Statement in Support of Transactional Distinction
by Kiran Malancharuvil April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Please include the attached statement in support of the transactional distinction. It was prepared by a number of the proponents of this provision. Thank you. Best, Kiran From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:28 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: Graeme Bunton; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 Kiran, Of course you (and any other member of the WG) can submit a separate statement today and can include in it whatever you wish. We have asked that statements be limited to 1-2 pages if at all possible. Steve From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:26 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: Graeme Bunton; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 Steve, I'm not sure I understand what is being proposed here. Are we still able to submit our statement (the deadline is today)? Are we allowed to link to the white paper in our statement? What links are to be provided? Just a link to the mailing list archive and call transcripts? That would not be appropriate. Asking folks to sort through the emails/calls looking for relevant information means that it will be essentially buried and inaccessible. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com%3cmailto:met@msk.com>>> wrote: Graeme and I have asked staff to insert a footnote in this section, providing links to the extensive discussions of the topic in WG meetings (telephonic and face to face) and on the mailing list, as background for the public. Steve From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme Bunton Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:14 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 Steve, myself and staff are discussing how to proceed while ensuring that balance is maintained. Thank you all for your contributions. Graeme On 2015-04-30 11:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > So let me get this very very clear, as i am new to the process. > 1. The research report you offered was sent to the list. > 2. It has never been part of the record. > 3. You wish to see it added now, April 30th, 23:58 KST. > 4, You are telling me I could have done the same thing. > 5. I have Exactly how much time to submit a minority report in order > to comply with the deadline of April 30th? > > Thanks for the clarifications. > Stephanie > > On 2015-04-30 23:52, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >> Stephanie, >> >> You had ample opportunity to prepare and present a white paper of >> your own. >> >> It was not unsolicited, as at any time, members of the group are >> welcome and encouraged to present their views on the matter under >> discussion. >> >> Are you really saying that a well researched policy position and a >> presentation of that research is NOT meant to be a part of the PDP >> process? I really do not think that it the case. >> >> I know that you object to the position that the white paper explains, >> but unless there is a concrete prohibition on linking to it (staff?) >> it needs to be included, as we have every right to present the >> complex legal argument behind our position. >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin >>> <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>> wrote: >>> >>> With great respect to Kiran and to the law firm that compiled the >>> "white paper", I objected at the time and there was no indication >>> that we accepted the white paper in our discussions, other than to >>> say thanks. I would object strenuously to it being included. That >>> was a totally unsolicited contribution from parties wishing to >>> advance their case. You cannot attach that paper, without giving >>> those on the other side an opportunity to counter it with another >>> white paper. Frankly, the PDP process is not supposed to be about >>> dualling unsolicited white papers. IF we need to have research >>> done, we have to agree on what needs to be done if it is to be >>> attached to the official call for comments. I don't wish to be >>> ungracious, but the paper should not be added. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> >>>> On 2015-04-30 23:34, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >>>> It is a recommendation for a policy/best practice from a portion of >>>> the group. >>>> >>>> K >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:33 AM, James Gannon >>>>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Unless we are suggesting that the whitepaper is consensus policy >>>>> or best practice it does not fall under that category. We are >>>>> presenting our policy recommendation already, which is the work >>>>> product of the group >>>>> >>>>> -James >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:31 PM >>>>> To: James Gannon >>>>> Cc: Mary Wong; PPSAI >>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>> >>>>> Recommendations for policies, guidelines, best practices. >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:29 AM, James Gannon >>>>>> <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting from the PDP Manual, there seems to be strong guidelines >>>>>> of what goes out with the Initial Report: >>>>>> >>>>>>> After collection and review of information, the PDP Team and >>>>>>> Staff are responsible for producing an Initial Report. The >>>>>>> Initial Report should include the following elements: >>>>>>> * Compilation of Stakeholder Group and Constituency Statements >>>>>>> * Compilation of any statements received from any ICANN >>>>>>> Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee >>>>>>> * Recommendations for policies, guidelines, best practices or >>>>>>> other proposals to address the issue >>>>>>> * Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations >>>>>>> presented in the Initial Report >>>>>>> * Information regarding the members of the PDP Team, such as the >>>>>>> attendance records, Statements of Interest, etc. >>>>>>> * A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the >>>>>>> proposed recommendations, could consider areas such as economic, >>>>>>> competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability >>>>>>> and feasibility >>>>>> I don't see where in that framework the whitepaper would sit. I >>>>>> would welcome others thoughts on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> -James >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> >>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran >>>>>> Malancharuvil >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:09 PM >>>>>> To: Mary Wong >>>>>> Cc: PPSAI >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Mary, >>>>>> >>>>>> Since one side of this issue prepared a lengthy legal review to >>>>>> address this question, I would request that that white paper be >>>>>> included in the reference materials for the public comment. Since >>>>>> public comment is meant to "resolve" this issue, commenters need >>>>>> all of the information. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not just down to feasibility of self-declaration at >>>>>> registration (which frankly, many of us see as a cop out since >>>>>> it's already done in some TLDs), but also legality. >>>>>> Not trying to re-open the debate, but please, let's make sure the >>>>>> community understands the various points and the background. >>>>>> >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Mary Wong >>>>>> <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> To add to Stephanie's note that this specific issue - whether >>>>>> registrants of domain names actively used for commercial >>>>>> transactions ought to be disallowed from using P/P services - had >>>>>> been discussed at some length by the WG: >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that this part of the Initial Report draws heavily on >>>>>> the detailed WG template for Charter Category C that was the >>>>>> basis for the WG's deliberations on this topic. That template >>>>>> contains lengthy descriptions of what had previously been termed >>>>>> the majority and minority positions on the WG's answer to this >>>>>> specific issue. As part of the WG's deliberations - which took >>>>>> place primarily between April and June 2014 - the more specific >>>>>> formulation of "transactional" to describe the sort of commercial >>>>>> (i.e. Involving financial transactions) activities that were >>>>>> being discussed was included in the language. All the templates >>>>>> and suggested formulations discussed by the WG are recorded and >>>>>> published on the WG wiki. >>>>>> >>>>>> The WG ultimately agreed to retain the two positions in the >>>>>> Initial Report and to revisit the question during its review of >>>>>> the public comments received. As noted previously, the WG's views >>>>>> were presented to the community in London in June 2014 and again >>>>>> in Los Angeles in October 2014. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, the three questions in Section 1.3.3 of the Executive >>>>>> Summary only go toward soliciting community input on this single >>>>>> issue. They were not intended to represent a view of any "side" >>>>>> in the WG with regard to this matter. If the WG prefers, we can >>>>>> add a sentence to clarify and specify the reason for the >>>>>> questions in Section 1.3.3. Fundamentally, the idea is that >>>>>> public comments will facilitate the WG's eventual resolution of >>>>>> this issue as part of its preparation of the Final Report. >>>>>> >>>>>> We hope this reminder of the background is of assistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Mary >>>>>> >>>>>> Mary Wong >>>>>> Senior Policy Director >>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca%3cmailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>>> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20 >>>>>> To: >>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3e>" >>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>>>, James >>>>>> Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>>>, >>>>>> Michele Blacknight >>>>>> <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com%3cmailto:michele@blacknight.com>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> James, prior to you joining the group, we had discussed this at >>>>>> some length. IN fact, I really thought that the many reasons why >>>>>> sorting out the purpose of a registration is problematic had >>>>>> buried this debate, but apparently not. Some of the issues >>>>>> raised, according to my recollection were the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> * names are registered prior to decisions about content >>>>>> * content changes over time >>>>>> * most countries regulate e-commerce in some fashion, so that >>>>>> website commercial activity does not have to be regulated by ICANN >>>>>> * ICANN should not be in the business of regulating content in >>>>>> the first place (and sorting out who is extracting a material >>>>>> consideration from a website in order to deny them the ability to >>>>>> use a proxy registration is certainly a form of regulation) >>>>>> * definitions of commercial activity vary widely around the world >>>>>> * bad actors will not declare, registrars cannot police this >>>>>> matter >>>>>> * criminal prosecution is not dependent on WHOIS information >>>>>> * if this is really about the ability to detect market >>>>>> information, ICANN should not be in the business of making >>>>>> registrant information available for market purposes, it does it >>>>>> for security and stability. >>>>>> * contactability remains, regardless of which registrant info >>>>>> appears in WHOIS >>>>>> >>>>>> I am planning to reformulate these into questions to match the >>>>>> questions on the other side, suggestions welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> On 2015-04-30 16:24, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>> I don't see this as asking providers to enforce anything similar >>>>>> to other questions when registering a domain, it's a >>>>>> self-reported assessment. All it does is add an additional branch >>>>>> to the decision tree for eligibility, which will already be there >>>>>> to determine eligibility due to the other reasons listed below. >>>>>> The registrant is asked will you be processing financial >>>>>> transactions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd party>No>Not eligible for >>>>>> P/P. >>>>>> >>>>>> * Yes-->Will you be using a 3rd party>Yes>Eligible for P/P. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not asking registrars to enforce law but to see if a more >>>>>> finely grained eligibility process can be enacted. Or at least is >>>>>> there is public support for more granularity. >>>>>> >>>>>> -James >>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:17 AM >>>>>> To: James Gannon; Graeme Bunton; PPSAI >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> As a registrar or PP service provider how am I meant to assess this? >>>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't scale >>>>>> >>>>>> Seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> If, for example, there is an Irish operated website that is not >>>>>> complying with Irish law then it would be up to the ODCE >>>>>> (http://www.odce.ie/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDK…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzAjWDK…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/4lNzdG4V_LBmiovLA6p9BZsfLgWW8IZSZ8mzFYFSE…>>) to enforce whatever needs enforcing, as it >>>>>> would be up to the DPA to enforce any issues around data privacy >>>>>> etc., etc., >>>>>> >>>>>> Attempting to force registrars and PP providers to make these >>>>>> kind of evaluations is not going to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Issues like PCI-DSS compliance are matters that should be dealt >>>>>> with by the DPA and the banks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Forcing registrars and PP providers to start getting involved in >>>>>> that kind of assessment isn't viable >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Michele >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>> http://www.blacknight.host/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-RcgETJh…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/l1oPubFTSPL9jkLJYE-i_s_cVzwLdAYnEJLnyze4q…>> >>>>>> http://blog.blacknight.com/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wV…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWheA8wV…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/4W4r20DAZy2h6dpYp2Tzq7FTSQAmTYs1vfAQIkdyf…>> >>>>>> http://www.blacknight.press<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFn…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYggzFn…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/zPN5CjAJdRJWk2B85RfU9bzzLTFtJr4NLfR-96KjM…>> - get our latest news & media >>>>>> coverage http://www.technology.ie<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2bCRS-…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/CUWs47OhCB2aa9RLj9Ftm3OqyHdbegkLXSOpMV8uB…>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>> Social: http://mneylon.social<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbd…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJNSbd…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/0oGY1mVf_smwKlCBVH2VOnpfmhsH1QKCI9PoPtiLi…>> >>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>>>>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>> >>>>>> From: James Gannon >>>>>> Date: Thursday 30 April 2015 07:45 >>>>>> To: Graeme Bunton, >>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3e%3e>" >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section >>>>>> 1.3.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> I would personally like to see if there is public traction for >>>>>> distinguishing between sites directly processing financial >>>>>> truncations and sites who use 3rd parties for processing >>>>>> financial transactions as this is a very important distinction. A >>>>>> simple and I hope non-controversial additional question to the >>>>>> ones below: >>>>>> If so, should domains which use a third party to process >>>>>> financial transactions (i.e Paypal, Stripe), and thus do not >>>>>> directly process financial information, be subject to the same >>>>>> restrictions? >>>>>> There are strong existing distinctions both in national laws and >>>>>> in regulations such as PCI-DSS between these two forms. >>>>>> >>>>>> -James Gannon >>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> >>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme >>>>>> Bunton >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17 PM >>>>>> To: PPSAI >>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier >>>>>> today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen). The co-chairs and >>>>>> staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, >>>>>> we recognize there is considerable support for extending the >>>>>> public comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days >>>>>> on which we have all been planning. We are prepared to agree to >>>>>> this, but with the caveat that this will have repercussions on >>>>>> the pace and intensity of our work once public comments have been >>>>>> received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline is >>>>>> extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May >>>>>> 4), we will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July >>>>>> and August, some of which may need to be more than an hour in >>>>>> length, to review these comments and move toward a Final Report. >>>>>> Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final >>>>>> Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin >>>>>> ICANN meeting. As was noted on the call today, many additional >>>>>> steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final >>>>>> Report before any new accreditati > on >>>> system can be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the >>>> expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of next year is >>>> already real. >>>>>> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG >>>>>> members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or >>>>>> additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for >>>>>> public comment next Monday, such statements need to be received >>>>>> by staff no later than Thursday, April 30. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to >>>>>> section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the >>>>>> call earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss >>>>>> fully. We agree that this section could benefit from some >>>>>> revision, but believe it should take the form of greater >>>>>> concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the >>>>>> divergent positions. Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be >>>>>> revised to read as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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 , >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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." >>>>>> >>>>>> Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following >>>>>> questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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? >>>>>> * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of >>>>>> "commercial" or "transactional" to define those domains for which >>>>>> P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what >>>>>> should the definition(s) be?" >>>>>> * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data >>>>>> fields to be displayed as a result? >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> _________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Graeme Bunton >>>>>> >>>>>> Manager, Management Information Systems >>>>>> >>>>>> Manager, Public Policy >>>>>> >>>>>> Tucows Inc. >>>>>> >>>>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…><https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/NkE1wHjmuxt3o9SjDC8u3UaEBOfWC2mFXjFJa1_yo…>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuokgr…>

6 8

Status summary (Re: PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3)
by Mary Wong April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Dear all, To make sure that staff has our homework clear, here is what we understand the most recent agreed changes to Section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report to be (not including those that have already been incorporated up to and including the WG discussions on the Tuesday call). I¹d like to call Stephanie¹s attention to the fact that the following does not, at the moment, include her suggested additional paragraph of text for Section 1.3.3 or her suggested fourth question, since both could be considered substantive additions to the text rather than re-workings of what is already in the text. As noted previously, that text has been specifically discussed by the WG as part of its review of the draft report. 1. Add a footnote to this sub-section that links to a new page on the WG wiki, to contain those documents the WG considered as part of its deliberations on this question as well as relevant email exchanges from the mailing list 2. Amend the questions for public comment on this specific question as follows (bold language indicating suggestions from Stephanie and Steve, and in bullet point #3, staff (based on the original Charter question C-3, which is where the original question was derived from)): * 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? If so, why, and if not, why not? * If you agree with this position, do you think it would be useful to adopt a definition of ³commercial² or ³transactional² to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? If so, what should the definition(s) be? * Would it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result of distinguishing between domain names used for online financial transactions and domain names that are not? 3. Include any additional statements that may be received by today in the Annex designated for these (currently, Annex F in the Initial Report); so far, one has been sent by Kiran on behalf of the group of WG members that supports making a distinction based on whether a domain name is registered for use associated with online financial transactions. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: John Horton <john.horton(a)legitscript.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 13:11 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 > +1 (Kiran) > > John Horton > President and CEO, LegitScript > > > > Follow LegitScript: 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 10:08 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil > <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com> wrote: >> I don¹t support footnoting the disagreement. It¹s far too significant of an >> issue for a footnote. >> >> I support Steve¹s suggestion on the language. >> >> K >> >> >> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org >> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:49 AM >> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >> >> Actually, and I do hate to belabor this but: >> 1. I thought you were proposing to drop the entire proposed new section and >> merely footnote the disagreement. I like that option a lot. >> 2. If we are proposing to keep the text, then there should be a balanced >> construction. I include once again the preamble, which affects that balance: >> >> 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 , 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. >> >> 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." >> For those that argued that limiting access to P/P services to exclude >> entities who were engaged in online financial transactions was impracticable >> and created an unacceptable risk to NGOs and vulnerable organizations who had >> legitimate needs for the services, the following text was proposed to clarify >> and define their position: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a >> domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and may unfairly discriminate against >> vulnerable groups and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of free >> speech on the Internet". >> >> Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following questions: >> * 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? If so, why, and if >> not, why not? >> * If [so, will] you agree with this position, do you think it would be >> useful to adopt a definition of ³commercial² or ³transactional² to define >> those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And >> if so, what should the definition(s) be?² >> * {Will} Would it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields >> to be displayed as a result? (this question is not clear, in my view, it >> needs more detail on the nature of the distinction, the data fields we are >> talking about, and to what does "as a result" refer? As a result of the >> decision to deny privacy proxy services???) >>> >>> * What risks do you foresee with either option? >> >> I would note that the clarifying questions here go to proposing draft text >> for the report, right down to the definition and data fields. I have added a >> question on risk....because before coming up with draft text to implement the >> banning of P/P use by those engaged in commercial activity (via the comments >> in response to this invitation), we have to look at the many risks >> here....key among them being that privacy proxy services will be priced out >> of the market by the complexity of the exercise, a point that registrars made >> on a number of occasions. This is an excellent outcome for those who do not >> favor them, but the NCSG certainly considers the services to be essential (I >> can only speak for them, but I know there is support in other quarters). >> Further, the final question is neutral, as there are clearly risks on both >> sides, and we seek the answers for both. >> >> Cheers SP >> >> --- >> >> On 2015-05-01 1:06, Graeme Bunton wrote: >>> Good suggestions, Steve. >>> Thank you, >>> Graeme >>> >>> On 2015-04-30 11:58 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >>>> Perhaps a simpler way to accomplish this would be to insert the following >>>> at the end of the first bullet: >>>> >>>> ³If so, why, and if not, why not?² >>>> >>>> We could then introduce the next two questions with ³If so,² and change >>>> ³will² to ³would² as Stephanie suggests. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org >>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:23 AM >>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org; Mary Wong >>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >>>> >>>> Thanks Mary, very helpful. Returning to the original text, I offer the >>>> following suggestions: >>>> 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: ³domains used for online >>>> financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for >>>> privacy and proxy registrations.² >>>> >>>> Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following >>>> questions: >>>> * 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? >>>> * If [so, will] you agree with this position, do you think it would be >>>> useful to adopt a definition of ³commercial² or ³transactional² to define >>>> those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And >>>> if so, what should the definition(s) be?² >>>> * {Will} Would it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data >>>> fields to be displayed as a result? (this question is not clear, in my >>>> view, it needs more detail on the nature of the distinction, the data >>>> fields we are talking about, and to what does "as a result" refer? As a >>>> result of the decision to deny privacy proxy services???) >>>> The use of the word "will" here appears to imply agreement with the text, >>>> you need the conditional. Then you need to seek clarification on the other >>>> side: >>>> * If you disagree with the proposal to deny the use of privacy and proxy >>>> services to domain names associated with commercial activities and which >>>> are used for online financial transactions, what are the reasons for your >>>> rejection of this proposal? >>>> >>>> Kind regards as always, >>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>>> On 2015-04-30 22:54, Mary Wong wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To add to Stephanie¹s note that this specific issue - whether registrants >>>>> of domain names actively used for commercial transactions ought to be >>>>> disallowed from using P/P services - had been discussed at some length by >>>>> the WG: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that this part of the Initial Report draws heavily on the >>>>> detailed WG template for Charter Category C that was the basis for the >>>>> WG¹s deliberations on this topic. That template contains lengthy >>>>> descriptions of what had previously been termed the majority and minority >>>>> positions on the WG¹s answer to this specific issue. As part of the WG¹s >>>>> deliberations which took place primarily between April and June 2014 - >>>>> the more specific formulation of ³transactional² to describe the sort of >>>>> commercial (i.e. Involving financial transactions) activities that were >>>>> being discussed was included in the language. All the templates and >>>>> suggested formulations discussed by the WG are recorded and published on >>>>> the WG wiki. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The WG ultimately agreed to retain the two positions in the Initial Report >>>>> and to revisit the question during its review of the public comments >>>>> received. As noted previously, the WG's views were presented to the >>>>> community in London in June 2014 and again in Los Angeles in October 2014. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, the three questions in Section 1.3.3 of the Executive Summary >>>>> only go toward soliciting community input on this single issue. They were >>>>> not intended to represent a view of any ³side² in the WG with regard to >>>>> this matter. If the WG prefers, we can add a sentence to clarify and >>>>> specify the reason for the questions in Section 1.3.3. Fundamentally, the >>>>> idea is that public comments will facilitate the WG¹s eventual resolution >>>>> of this issue as part of its preparation of the Final Report. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We hope this reminder of the background is of assistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Mary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mary Wong >>>>> >>>>> Senior Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892> >>>>> >>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca> >>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20 >>>>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org>, James >>>>> Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net>, Michele Blacknight >>>>> <michele(a)blacknight.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James, prior to you joining the group, we had discussed this at some >>>>>> length. IN fact, I really thought that the many reasons why sorting out >>>>>> the purpose of a registration is problematic had buried this debate, but >>>>>> apparently not. Some of the issues raised, according to my recollection >>>>>> were the following: >>>>>> * names are registered prior to decisions about content >>>>>> * content changes over time >>>>>> * most countries regulate e-commerce in some fashion, so that website >>>>>> commercial activity does not have to be regulated by ICANN >>>>>> * ICANN should not be in the business of regulating content in the first >>>>>> place (and sorting out who is extracting a material consideration from a >>>>>> website in order to deny them the ability to use a proxy registration is >>>>>> certainly a form of regulation) >>>>>> * definitions of commercial activity vary widely around the world >>>>>> * bad actors will not declare, registrars cannot police this matter >>>>>> * criminal prosecution is not dependent on WHOIS information >>>>>> * if this is really about the ability to detect market information, ICANN >>>>>> should not be in the business of making registrant information available >>>>>> for market purposes, it does it for security and stability. >>>>>> * contactability remains, regardless of which registrant info appears in >>>>>> WHOIS >>>>>> I am planning to reformulate these into questions to match the questions >>>>>> on the other side, suggestions welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-04-30 16:24, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>> I don¹t see this as asking providers to enforce anything similar to >>>>>>> other questions when registering a domain, it¹s a self-reported >>>>>>> assessment. All it does is add an additional branch to the decision tree >>>>>>> for eligibility, which will already be there to determine eligibility >>>>>>> due to the other reasons listed below. >>>>>>> The registrant is asked will you be processing financial transactions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> · YesàWill you be using a 3rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> · YesàWill you be using a 3rd party>Yes>Eligible for P/P. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I¹m not asking registrars to enforce law but to see if a more finely >>>>>>> grained eligibility process can be enacted. Or at least is there is >>>>>>> public support for more granularity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:17 AM >>>>>>> To: James Gannon; Graeme Bunton; PPSAI >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a registrar or PP service provider how am I meant to assess this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn¹t scale >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If, for example, there is an Irish operated website that is not >>>>>>> complying with Irish law then it would be up to the ODCE >>>>>>> (http://www.odce.ie/ >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/IqfLPS2xhmx-5GDCPCM4mLmlw-jOPQHGmhpzA >>>>>>> jWDKActStEmX7ndjfqnEIgUMkdhXCAGe_aALVo69T0irIiCOftGW0RRkFeeJXP_SQ_bxxN5c >>>>>>> 9ZWrJzjnfSpDUeI4UjuT2dsrtgXox-JsiUyGsBvbDhSHcf2gH3gqSI2YwvUnORJuOhanPP2u >>>>>>> CSQp3bey2BqQKbirhovyP6hDiunUi2Ilg> ) to enforce whatever needs >>>>>>> enforcing, as it would be up to the DPA to enforce any issues around >>>>>>> data privacy etc., etc., >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attempting to force registrars and PP providers to make these kind of >>>>>>> evaluations is not going to work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Issues like PCI-DSS compliance are matters that should be dealt with by >>>>>>> the DPA and the banks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Forcing registrars and PP providers to start getting involved in that >>>>>>> kind of assessment isn¹t viable >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.blacknight.host/ >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/r0QiXaZk72F7OmWKc9_pO3HAiIAvI3h06-Rcg >>>>>>> ETJh-J4kMLvQtMGZn5lKnoQO8ikZnQiTNL6FLbYD67s4dF-tWj2IbgtPVbZIrmLhFiT8cZvR >>>>>>> oXUKLem6cyG8n3JE6-tis8tEkBPwKkOuqFU7azbPzFSZPBE0XjNt1o6W5MAy5yWOEr-3QLGc >>>>>>> TYMC5oDDDwuftYuz9pHDOyvEieReE36N1UxTeWXBI__3g1_xmHN4S0> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://blog.blacknight.com/ >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/wl1MfvJ8aWTxnqz6FCsjG4QE5Lt8k3OKgMWhe >>>>>>> A8wVhCgpAj6NRi9Y8zMxa9MvTN2vhD-EWNpvAhObo3t9Jl-Kh7ki557bXwOMPGhz-Up4X8e1 >>>>>>> Q8UR-DF0d4jYhrGpb0LrotD50UduC3QQRYUJ24nEnbyayh-GPs3hk77LhEpDwYrSf4v_Rqmo >>>>>>> hacWFuO-pMc6Ap8I9JulleUf0h9FbW-MHMc1xlq8F7WXPVnekaa_Tg> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.blacknight.press >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/-MRGGedz53TF8UWq3rKo8GI39ai_ismqN0UYg >>>>>>> gzFnhsCzIT83jwX24BSxN_VMtJYpUgkSGF-Qst71LuBVQLY87bs-vewJiEDX8p5ABHKofJc6 >>>>>>> 9pmthPRFaowH9cz7b4wBdr45nD9yW3n5wmmAGAorNORPO2oD8fx1b7Ch4UucRtocG7TVoD8q >>>>>>> 8xePkXjqmELFjL3powas7Q8SOSYQE947lLpZzCcGrOwqu7wogrVuvk> - get our >>>>>>> latest news & media coverage >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.technology.ie >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/suwZNIiJfrdSpqE4iC56mMY3x3S91aHmdyA2b >>>>>>> CRS-Fmr9Q1_uNxFISl4UXNQGJAa4ABDSoMKKJoH4LBI6dPDpw1IcPIW2UD6KmY-khZffkUgG >>>>>>> yGTLPU0VW-nWld8z7P0H2Ru_lA2gyfCIuoaN7WmFU6IRQ9AVVBKNMpsRsxQkxp27qp4b1vr0 >>>>>>> Nu7xAxlXjinmqCYcWDyv6BlIGk1JID86YB5QMhEW98wyZ5sollRXTc> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Social: http://mneylon.social >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/c9ciyb99CMvSHLw2MJX2WYjWAGojFAv6abNbJ >>>>>>> NSbdh-ZFyKYiMOesCOSW0IbP_Hk74wcQMPR4LFdtPIo3qwpdVxkGjxnPEF73YlWOioKWfm0A >>>>>>> SY6v7enF3zKmqddqH2G4dXIbPg_PVqGwzzZzhWQxKSK2MKPyc4QXazyYJjS7H_X2JdIq2B8e >>>>>>> AZeCDmgPBWH09Ix-VujUi5pHJeE_GXWIlFrE4TTH0hP08WIPWYQvhY> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>>>>>> Park,Sleaty >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: James Gannon >>>>>>> Date: Thursday 30 April 2015 07:45 >>>>>>> To: Graeme Bunton, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would personally like to see if there is public traction for >>>>>>> distinguishing between sites directly processing financial truncations >>>>>>> and sites who use 3rd parties for processing financial transactions as >>>>>>> this is a very important distinction. A simple and I hope >>>>>>> non-controversial additional question to the ones below: >>>>>>> If so, should domains which use a third party to process financial >>>>>>> transactions (i.e Paypal, Stripe), and thus do not directly process >>>>>>> financial information, be subject to the same restrictions? >>>>>>> There are strong existing distinctions both in national laws and in >>>>>>> regulations such as PCI-DSS between these two forms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -James Gannon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme Bunton >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:17 PM >>>>>>> To: PPSAI >>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and to >>>>>>> Steve for his chairing acumen). The co-chairs and staff met this >>>>>>> afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we >>>>>>> recognize there is considerable support for extending the public comment >>>>>>> period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we have all >>>>>>> been planning. We are prepared to agree to this, but with the caveat >>>>>>> that this will have repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work >>>>>>> once public comments have been received. Specifically, if the public >>>>>>> comment deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication >>>>>>> date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout >>>>>>> July and August, some of which may need to be more than an hour in >>>>>>> length, to review these comments and move toward a Final Report. >>>>>>> Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final Report in >>>>>>> front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin ICANN meeting. As >>>>>>> was noted on the call today, many additional steps need to take place >>>>>>> even after this WG issues its Final Report before any new accreditation >>>>>>> system can be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the >>>>>>> expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of next year is >>>>>>> already real. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG members >>>>>>> (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or additional >>>>>>> statement for inclusion in the package posted for public comment next >>>>>>> Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no later than >>>>>>> Thursday, April 30. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 1.3.3 >>>>>>> of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier today >>>>>>> but which we did not have time to discuss fully. We agree that this >>>>>>> section could benefit from some revision, but believe it should take the >>>>>>> form of greater concision, not additional presentation of arguments for >>>>>>> the divergent positions. Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised >>>>>>> to read as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> 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 , 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: ³domains used for online >>>>>>> financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for >>>>>>> privacy and proxy registrations.² >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following >>>>>>> questions: >>>>>>> * 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? >>>>>>> * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of ³commercial² or >>>>>>> ³transactional² to define those domains for which P/P service >>>>>>> registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what should the >>>>>>> definition(s) be?² >>>>>>> * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to >>>>>>> be displayed as a result? >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> _________________________ >>>>>>> Graeme Bunton >>>>>>> Manager, Management Information Systems >>>>>>> Manager, Public Policy >>>>>>> Tucows Inc. >>>>>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 <tel:416%20535%200123%20ext%201634> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-pp >>>>>>> sai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsu >>>>>>> okgr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fC >>>>>>> de0OuGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_B >>>>>>> DY04YcHIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU >>>>>>> 964UWsThNMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/r/w4cOGJpN8aqiFBeZDDCfM61L9zSPPQ8yJTOsuok >>>>> gr0uUoFWQcH4C1vKnhAJR8I5CDUGd3f75FQZ0RrGQoOiumi5fkuGEeAdPoDjA3DGFVt5fCde0O >>>>> uGcKsc4syb-86Vd3ZsMEWNubiso-WCMGJKqofC67xfNJVO1oqFPAmL7abae98k88hH_BDY04Yc >>>>> HIhprEG-vGcToOzkceYzCw4sYw77Sj8DHh1iwNuJPKagRVm5XkaPrKRnvsIqURxFUU964UWsTh >>>>> NMfSE_TxYg9ZhC-Fg> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>> >>> >>> -- >>> _________________________ >>> Graeme Bunton >>> Manager, Management Information Systems >>> Manager, Public Policy >>> Tucows Inc. >>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 <tel:416%20535%200123%20ext%201634> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >

1 0

PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
by Graeme Bunton April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen). The co-chairs and staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call. Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we recognize there is considerable support for extending the public comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we have all been planning. We are prepared to agree to this, but with the caveat that this will have repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work once public comments have been received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and August, some of which may need to be more than an hour in length, to review these comments and move toward a Final Report. Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin ICANN meeting. As was noted on the call today, many additional steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final Report before any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of next year is already real. Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for public comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no later than Thursday, April 30. Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss fully. We agree that this section could benefit from some revision, but believe it should take the form of greater concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the divergent positions. Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows: --- 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 , 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. 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.” Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following questions: * 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? * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of “commercial” or “transactional” to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what should the definition(s) be?” * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result? --- Thanks, Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

10 38

Updated draft Initial Report
by Mary Wong April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear WG members, Attached please find: (1) the updated draft Initial Report for our Working Group, incorporating all changes and updates as of our call this past Tuesday, 21 April and retaining all options/wording yet to be agreed on, marked up from the 29 January 2015 version; (2) a clean copy of that part of the Executive Summary that contains all the WG¹s preliminary conclusions, open questions and majority/minority positions (note the markup is fairly messy, given that significant changes have been made to this part of the document); and (3) a clean copy of the illustrative Disclosure Framework for trademark and copyright-related requests (incorporated into the Initial Report as Annex E). All three documents have also been posted to the WG wiki, and are accessible at: https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw. We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes and updates to date, and have as a result made significant changes to the Executive Summary from the 29 January document. Other consequent changes are largely contained in Section 7, which as you know is the more detailed and contextual text explaining our deliberations and recommendations. Two new Annexes one for the illustrative Disclosure Framework and the other for additional statements (if any) - have also been added. Most of the other changes to the 29 January version are therefore more of formatting, typo-correcting, and grammar-related ones. As always, please let us know if you spot any errors or omissions. We look forward to finalizing the draft with everyone on the WG call next week (28 April). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

11 24

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 28 April 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 28 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-28apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>apr<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick - Individual Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Alex Deacon -IPC Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Luc Seufer - RrSG Roger Carney - RrSG Sarah Wyld - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Todd Williams - IPC James Gannon - NCUC David Heasley - IPC Paul McGrady - IPC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Vicky Sheckler - IPC David Cake - NCSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Richard Leaning - Individual Susan Prosser - RrSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG Chris Pelling - RrSG Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Darcy Southwell - RrSG Volker Greimann - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 28 April 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 28 April 2015 Holly Raiche:Greetings all Graeme Bunton:I can hear you Steph Graeme Bunton:look on booking.com James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Does anyone know if theres a trick to getting adobe to work with a mac? Mic doesnt seem to work at all? Works fine in skype! Holly Raiche:I'm on a Mac, but get a dial in - which works just fine Paul:Hi everyone! Mary Wong:@James, sometimes a different browser helps e.g. Firefox over Chrome James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:oh yes Ill try that Terri Agnew:Adobe connect prefers Firefox. What browser are you using? Michele Neylon:firefox? ugh Michele Neylon::) Philip Corwin:There's no accounting for browser taste ;-) James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Yes firefox success James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Now I can badger you all during the call =) Michele Neylon:I'm still waiting for the operator Terri Agnew:Wlecome David Cake and Dick Leaning val sherman:Hello all. David Heasley also on audio bridge. Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer Mary Wong:Thanks, all - noted. Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Stephanie Perrin:Howdy Carlton! richard leaning:michele is right about that point Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Yes, so maybe we make it clear that some circumstances may bar you from sharing Luc Seufer:does the I in PPSAI stands for Irish? How many are you guys richard leaning:on the court order issue James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:=) Michele Neylon:only two James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Understood was jsut more of a comment on possibilities Michele Neylon:I don't like the idea of being forced to inform Michele Neylon:that's on the previous point - sorry James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think it should be both Michele Neylon:another registrar sounds more logical Terri Agnew:Welcome Sussan Prosser Luc Seufer:what? Paul:I can hear the phone Mary Wong:Yes, there are links and references in the Report to all agreements and policies referenced Mary Wong:We will double check that the links and references are all in the right place Mary Wong:Expired Registration Recovery Policy Terri Agnew:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid has joined on audio Kathy:@Mary - can we include this full term *and its reference section in the RAA* and link to it? That way people can find it very easily if they are trying to research... tx! Mary Wong:@Kathy I think we have a direct link to the ERRP (including its full spelling) and to the RAA, Specs, etc. - in this case we probably put it later on in the document than here Kathy:could we put it here? Easy to get lost in a 100+ page report... Mary Wong:As mentioned, we will check before publishing to make sure that each acronym and referenced document gets its link the first time it appears in the doc Terri Agnew:Welcome Chris Pelling Chris Pelling:Sorry for lateness, today has been one of those days Kathy:@Mary, as Steve suggested, in each section would be useful. Kathy:Hi Chris! James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think abuse is a relativly widely used term, it doesnt sound nice but its a common use Michele Neylon:"abuse" is a term we all use Michele Neylon:this is a polichy James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think we need a PDP on Internet Explorer support Michele Neylon:James - yes Michele Neylon:Google can fund it James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:=) Holly Raiche:@ Irish James - Maybe we can write the interim report now Michele Neylon:IE sucks Michele Neylon:end of report James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Definintly fits with being in the public interest Luc Seufer:fine by me Stephanie Perrin:lost sound there for a while? Michele Neylon:we spent 5 minutes talking about Canadians Michele Neylon:it was awesome Luc Seufer:and their weird love of privacy rights Terri Agnew:@Stephanie, let me know if a dial out is needed Michele Neylon:I was more concerned about their beers Kathy:+1 Holly Luc Seufer:the two are linked Kathy:that makes sense Stephanie Perrin:privacy, good beer, free speech....it's all good up here in the frozen north. Mary Wong:On Sec 1.3.2 - this question is in the Charter Terri Agnew:@Stephanie, we are unable to hear you Michele Neylon:Stephanie - that's between the customer and the provider Graeme Bunton:STephanie, back to mute Mary Wong:Please mute if you're not speaking Michele Neylon:somebody has a terrible line James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:adobe is freaking out on me Kathy:And that remedy for the Customer may be vis a vis the Requestor Carlton Samuels:@All: This is a general comment. I read the Exec Summary and the general feeling I have is it does not go far enough to lay out the rights and responsibilities of stakeholders. I want to see remedies mentioned, especially for those who make use of P/P services and their contractual and other rights are breached. Paul:We aren't a global legislator Stephanie Perrin:no I have said what I had to say.. Even if there is an agreement with the customer, they cannot sign away their rights in the event of a breach Michele Neylon:Carlton - a lot of registrars offer this service for free or very very cheap Mary Wong:@Carlton, the recommendations are exactly what the WG has agreed on. We cannot add anything substantive unless the WG agrees to additional recommendations. Luc Seufer:Carlton I think those will be defined by the WG working on implementation Michele Neylon:Carlton - if you make it too burdensome people will stop offering it entirely Stephanie Perrin:old hand Michele Neylon:and if you want heavier protection then maybe you need to move to a provider that offers that level of service Luc Seufer:I vote we get read of the German Michele Neylon:he's on parentl aleave Michele Neylon:parental even Luc Seufer:(refernce no Volker himself) Luc Seufer:rid Carlton Samuels:@All: Can we then say, specifically on implementation and with respect to remedies, that the Implementation Team is guided to outline what might be available? Vicky Sheckler:thanks Steve, for getting us through all of those comments Mary Wong:The 1.3.3 language has been in the draft Initial Report since December; and the text is substantially what the WG agreed to in June 2014, and presented to the community in London. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy: This is MY concern with respect to the Exec Summary. Most persons will read *only* that of the report. I think it would be very useful for us to ensure that important matters are highlighted here. Michele Neylon:personally I'm more concerned about the announcement text Stephanie Perrin:I support Carlton's remark about the executive summary. Indeed the provision of accredited services is probably going to be more burdensome than what we have now ( in reference to Michele's comment) but the customer needs remedies and guarantees. Holly Raiche:@Maary - I think Kathy's point is exactly that - it is an old statement and should reflect where we are up to Carlton Samuels:@Michele: Yessir, that too! Marika Konings:Regarding translation, as per the PDP Manual as well as the translation guidelines, only the executive summary of the Initial Report is translated. Note that free tools are available and linked from the GNSO site should interested parties want to translate other sections of the document. Kathy:The questions DO tie back - and the Executive Summary should be presenting the key open questions Michele Neylon:+1 Marika James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:@Marika at the request of the WG/Chairs can other sections be translated? Not asking for it now but wondering if its possible Vicky Sheckler:+`1 w/ todd val sherman:+1 Todd Todd Williams:Oh look, my email that I sent over an hour ago just popped up as I was talking. Not sure why the delay. Sorry for the redundancy. Marika Konings:@James - of course, any request can be considered, but as noted there are specific guidelines in place to deal with translation and have as such been applied to any PDP WG Initial Report as far as I am aware. Susan Kawaguchi:+1 to Steve Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ steve val sherman:Some of these questions are leading and should be presented as an additional comment at this point. Mary Wong:Note that 1.3.3 in substance has not changed since June 2014 Mary Wong:This (1.3.3) is an issue that the WG agreed it cannot reach consensus on. Vicky Sheckler:diagree w/ kathy's ssuggestion to add that language Vicky Sheckler:Many do not agree w/ this view. I stronlgy disagree with kathy's suggestion Stephanie Perrin:Fully suppport Kahy's suggestion, we know this is an area of contention so it needsto be fully explained. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:+1 to Kathys suggestion Kathy:it's the majority group... Michele Neylon:separate question and comment period? James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:The initial report should provide a view of all of the WG, minority groups aswell. It means that we do not have broad consensus on this Michele Neylon:huh? Michele Neylon:sorry but how would that work? Graeme Bunton:We have discussed that issue multiple times for many calls Mary Wong:@Michele, @James - an additional statement to be added as a new annex Stephanie Perrin:We may be a minority in this WG, but we are certainly not in the user community Kathy:@All: 1.3.3. really has to be fair and balanced - and accurate! Mary Wong:We normally request the translation at the same time as request to open the public comment James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Mary: So if translation takes 3 weeks anyone whos native language is not english has 3 weeks less to comment? Graeme Bunton:I tend to agree with Kathy that 1.3.3 doesn't reflect the state of discussion, but perhaps we can find some better language Marika Konings:@James - I believe the turn around time is much shorter than that, but we will confirm. Kathy:+1 Holly Chris Pelling:agree Stephanie Perrin:+1 Holly. Maybe never happy, but at least feeling it is fair and balanced. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Ok thanks Mrika, could we get a headstart by starting transltion on agreed text sections because cutting into a possible 40 day comment period for anyone who is not a native speaker is seriously testing =) Stephanie Perrin:We have also pushed to have the deadline moved back as well. James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I have to run to another call guys. Thanks for a good meeting Michele Neylon:this is just an interim report Michele Neylon:so publish and let's move on val sherman:+1 Michele Carlton Samuels:Bye all. Duty calls Chris Pelling:thanks all :) val sherman:Bye and thanks all! Graeme Bunton:thanks all

1 0

Summary of WG comments received to date on the draft Initial Report
by Mary Wong April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear WG members, For purposes of facilitating the discussion on our upcoming call, the chairs and staff have compiled the attached document, listing (in chronological order according to the sequence in the draft Initial Report) the various comments and suggestions received as of 0:00 UTC this morning. As Kathy sent a separate document, this is now referenced in the attached summary, and we also attach Kathy¹s document for your easy review. Both documents will be made available in the Adobe Connect room during the call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Translations question
by James Gannon April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Hi Mary, Am I to understand from the PDP Manual that *only* the Executive summary will be translated or can additional parts be translated upon request of the WG/Chairs? -James On 28/04/2015 14:38, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >Hello Kathy and all, > >The GNSO PDP Manual encourages translation of WG outcomes as follows: > >"When posted for Public Comment, Staff should consider translating the >executive summaries of the Initial Reports and Draft Final Reports into >the six UN languages, to the extent permissible under the ICANN >translation policy and the ICANN budget, though the posting of any version >in English is not to be delayed while translations are being completed.² > >I don¹t know off the top of my head how long this will take, although I >know that our Languages Service Department has been working to improve the >turnaround time for requests, among other areas they have identified as >part of an improved framework for making ICANN fully accessible to >speakers of various languages: https://www.icann.org/translations. Other >recent efforts include the Asia Pacific launch of a Language Localizaton >Toolkit that involves collaboration with the various linguistic >communities around the region. > >I hope this is helpful. > > > > > > >Thanks and cheers >Mary > >Mary Wong >Senior Policy Director >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> >Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 09:16 >To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" ><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> >Subject: Translations question > >>Hi Mary, >>I was wondering if you could tell us how long translations of the >>Interim Report will take - and in what languages ICANN will be able to >>provide it? >>Best and tx, >>Kathy

1 0