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

Translations question
by Kathy Kleiman April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

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

2 1

Agenda for WG call on 28 April
by Mary Wong April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for our next call, scheduled for Tuesday 28 April 2015: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Review draft Initial Report (circulated on 23 April and posted also at https://community.icann.org/x/TYsQAw) 3. Next steps Thanks to Holly for sending in her thoughts on the 23 April document; our understanding is that other WG members may also be circulating comments prior to the call tomorrow. Please feel free to do so to enable other members to review your comments as much in advance as possible. 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

5 4

FW: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments
by Glen de Saint Géry April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Resent to mailing list -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: lundi 27 avril 2015 14:16 Subject: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments Folks - some suggestions/questions - Move the definitions (now in para 17 of the Exec Summary) to the front - to explain how we are using the terms. Add the term requestor to mean the individual/organisation requesting contact details for the customer. Remove all mention of the word reveal since this report is using the term 'disclosure' to mean revealing details of the customer to the requestor. Also, add definition of relay to mean the p/p provider notifying the customer that the requestor is trying to contact the customer. In Para 7, 3rd dot point: Why would a customer not be told when the provider has received a disclosure or publication request. Further, it is not clear why that dot point implies that a customer might not choose to cancel its registration for both a disclosure and publication request Para 16, First dot point: I'm not sure about the use of the term 'abuse' in the first sentence. I think I know what is meant, but maybe something a bit less harsh such as 'misuse or abuse' Para 20: Is there agreement on the process of de-accreditation of a p/p provider? This assumes that there is, but I"m not sure we have agreed on what is meant. Will a p/p provider be monitored for compliance, or will compliance with this specification be complaints driven? Have we come to agreement on what to do when a complaint is upheld - about what, and what will be done. The text does mention that ICANN Compliance will have a role - which is? Holly

2 1

III.C words "but not limited to" need to go back in too
by Kathy Kleiman April 27, 2015

April 27, 2015

Hi All, As we work to close the document, I would like to point out another change that was proposed, but not discussed or accepted. It's the deletion of the words "but not limited to" in the opening of III.C. This was proposed by Val, not discussed on our call, and not accepted by the group. I would like to ask that the initial words ("including but not limited to"), in the draft for so long, be continued... as they are standard drafting language --- and do not limit the broad sets of responses so many supported today. Best, Kathy III.C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of the following: ***

9 9

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments
by Darcy Southwell April 27, 2015

April 27, 2015

Regarding Holly¹s comments: * Agree we need to move the definition section to the beginning of the summary. * Re para. 7, third bullet, I think there are times when a P/P provider will not notify a customer, such as with certain LEA requests for Disclosure. In addition to Holly¹s comments, and some grammatical edits and specific questions in the attached, I think we should consider more careful use of defined terminology: * Throughout the Initial Report we refer to P/P providers in a number of ways, e.g, P/P services, P/P provider, Service Providers, service providers, accredited providers, ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service provider, etc. To be consistent and avoid confusion when this goes out for public comment, we should probably stick with just one defined reference for a privacy/proxy provider. * We use both ³requestor² and ³requester² I think what is really meant is ³requester² but in any event we should be consistent with our terminology. Thanks, Darcy From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM To: "Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments Resent to mailing list -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: lundi 27 avril 2015 14:16 Subject: [gnso-secs] Initial PPSAI Report - comments Folks - some suggestions/questions - Move the definitions (now in para 17 of the Exec Summary) to the front - to explain how we are using the terms. Add the term requestor to mean the individual/organisation requesting contact details for the customer. Remove all mention of the word reveal since this report is using the term 'disclosure' to mean revealing details of the customer to the requestor. Also, add definition of relay to mean the p/p provider notifying the customer that the requestor is trying to contact the customer. In Para 7, 3rd dot point: Why would a customer not be told when the provider has received a disclosure or publication request. Further, it is not clear why that dot point implies that a customer might not choose to cancel its registration for both a disclosure and publication request Para 16, First dot point: I'm not sure about the use of the term 'abuse' in the first sentence. I think I know what is meant, but maybe something a bit less harsh such as 'misuse or abuse' Para 20: Is there agreement on the process of de-accreditation of a p/p provider? This assumes that there is, but I"m not sure we have agreed on what is meant. Will a p/p provider be monitored for compliance, or will compliance with this specification be complaints driven? Have we come to agreement on what to do when a complaint is upheld - about what, and what will be done. The text does mention that ICANN Compliance will have a role - which is? Holly _______________________________________________ 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

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 21 April 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 21 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-21apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr>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 Darcy Southwell - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Alex Deacon -IPC Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC David Hughes - IPC Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Chris Pelling - RrSG Luc Seufer - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roger Carney - RrSG James Bladel - 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 Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins 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 21 April 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 21 April 2015 Mary Wong:Loud and clear, Graeme! Mary Wong::) Graeme Bunton:Gettin more tea, brb Osvaldo Novoa:Hello Bladel:Getting more Red Bull brb. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Morning/Afteroon/Evening val sherman:Hello all Holly Raiche:Hello all val sherman:David Heasley also on audio bridge Graeme Bunton:Thanks Val Mary Wong:Lindsay Hamilton-Reid also sends apologies. Terri Agnew:Philip Corwin has joined audio Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels Carlton Samuels:Morning everybody Kathy:How long will the public have to submit comments? Kathy:tx! Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio Bladel:I'll dial in. Bladel:I'm in. Kathy:Graeme - original changes here posted by Val. Kathy:May be good to start with Val? Terri Agnew:Welcome Luc Seufer Luc Seufer:Thank you Terri Kathy:+1 James James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I would support that. Stephanie Perrin:+1 James. There is so much going on, and our work is important Holly Raiche:+ 1 for James James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:23:59 UTC is the magic number right =) Bladel:Dparting for Buenos Aires on teh 12th of June. If you can believe that. Terri Agnew:Welcome Chris Pelling Chris Pelling:apologies fir tardiness Holly Raiche:The other question is whether we will have reached consensus on the major issues within the next few days Bladel:If Staff feels they will have comments ready for review by BA, then I'm good with that. Mary Wong:@James, that will depend in large part on when the comments come in :) Bladel:Mary: Assume 75% will come in the last 48 hours. As STeve noted, it is part of the ICANN culture. Mary Wong:No comment :) Holly Raiche:Mayabe even use the BA meeting to discuss the report within and among the constituencies Mary Wong:We provide the GAC with monthly updates on our PDPs - so they will know when we release the Report. Bladel:did my audio drop? Carlton Samuels:No sound James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Ahha scared me there Carlton Samuels:Aaaah James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Yes and many of us will be v busy with CWG and CCWG in BA. Carlton Samuels:@Kathy on commnet disabilities being designed +1 Mary Wong:Note that the period immediately post-Bs As won't necessarily be less busy, as the CWG/CCWG/ICG will still have work items for comment Mary Wong:There is also no longer a reply period in the new 40-day public comment period. Kathy:@Mary: right, but many public comment periods are now longer than 30/40 days Stephanie Perrin:That was my point, if you miss this comment period, you have missed the boat. Carlton Samuels:The At-Large is challenged to mobilise the edge even with less complex matters Holly Raiche:All he more reason to be sure that all the issues have reached consensus first - Stephanie Perrin:So are the NCSG Carlton! val sherman:Yes -- here Holly Raiche:@ Carlton - +1 Mary Wong:@Steph, everyone - hence my note to not expect that post-Bs As will be less busy, so extending the public comment period may or may not help with the time crunch issue :) Mary Wong::( I mean Holly Raiche:The issue is that the only reason mentioned is IP Carlton Samuels:I have to go. But let the record show for the proposed C.2 and C.3 is an IP lawyers dream. But this is not about IP alone. It actually narrows the scope for disclosure which is not a good thing. I would leave those alone. let it remain "the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in questio" val sherman:thank you:) James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks Val gives a good basis on the driver for the language Carlton Samuels:And this "3) [the Provider has found adequate reasons against disclosure]". No change required Terri Agnew:Paul McGrady has joined audio Carlton Samuels:I have to go. Must make a living. Mary Wong:13 April language: " the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided [adequate] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question" Terri Agnew:goodbye Carlton steve metalitz:@Kathy can you provide a concrete example of a reason that would be "adequate" but not embraced within Val's language? Paul McGrady:Sorry to join late Mary Wong:Original language: "that the Customer has objected to the disclosure and has provided compelling reasons against disclosure" James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:If we start adding this level of specificity do we have to go back and look at the rest of the document and add specificity to other setions, this seems like a lot to do at this stage and would probably require extention of timelines Mary Wong:@James, it was always open to everyone to suggest modifications to any open section. Luc Seufer:Agree with Bladel. Chris Pelling:I agree whole heeartidly with JamesB Chris Pelling:Registrars are not judge nor jury Bladel:and unfortunately more common Luc Seufer:I am not found of the "slam dunk" cases but there is the blatant infringement concept in both French and Lux. laws which we could use Terri Agnew:Welcome Tatiana Khramtsova Alex Deacon:The issue boils down to the word "adequate" - its just to vague. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:oops James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:no i ssed James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:nope connection probs James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:=) Terri Agnew:@James , let me know if you need a dial out Bladel:Adobe is really letting us down today. Stephanie Perrin:+1 Kathy, trying to make this bullet proof for bad faith actors is the real problem we are wordsmithing over... James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Ah Ill pop it in the chat =) Ok on a philospphical level I support Kathy's points. And on a practcal level I spport the other James. We need to avoid wordsmithing here even when its from a position of good faith. There is a world outside of IP (And I'm very much a supporter of IP rights by the way) that we need to be able to respect. We cant put the providers into a positoin of having to have a team of lawyers working on these requests as may be the case in larger providers that may be dealing with large volumes of requests. I think that we need to be as paractical as possible here, lets go back to the original language that was largely agreed on and had broad support. Mary Wong:An earlier version had "adequate" versus "sufficient" (after "compelling") Holly Raiche:We did use the word compeelling - as a more polite phrase than slam dunk James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks Graeme. Alex Deacon:@kathy - would you example not be covered by vals (ii) ? i.e. defensible? James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:=) Holly Raiche:@ James +1 val sherman:James -- isn't that covered by i -- not infringing? Kathy:@Alex, defensible? Maybe the child did paint Mickey Mouse and maybe it was posted. Holly Raiche:So theanswer to my question - better without examples Terri Agnew:Welcome Vicky Sheckler Kathy:@Alex, there are different rights on both sides - some for IP owners and other sources of protection for Customers/Registrants; we have to allow both steve metalitz:@James What is the difference between "we don't see infringement" v. We have a reasonable basis to believe there is no infringement? Bladel:Steve: I don't want to put people on the record as offering a legal opinion whether or not infringement exists. More that we do not see it, even if it may actually exist. Mary Wong:How about, instead of "Provider has a reasonable basis for believing" we say "Provider believes there is a reasonable basis"? vicky sheckler:have to jump again. sorry Kathy:@Mary: how do corporations "believe" -- sorry, but a drafting issue... Mary Wong:@Kathy, just trying to offer a bit more flexibility, to tie in with a Provider's (subjective) judgment rather than make it seem as though a Provider needs to provide a legal basis. Holly Raiche:@ Kathy - we did like the word compelling rather than ideas of reasonable belief (however phrased) steve metalitz:@Kathy, bracketed language shows differing views, not which came first Bladel:i don't even remember the original language at this point. Mary Wong:@Kathy I don't think we've ever done that, even for other places in the report (not just this document) where there has been differences among the WG val sherman:From my perspective, there was no consensus on this point -- it just wasn't yet addressed steve metalitz:@James B, the original language was"compelling reasons to refuse disclosure" Kathy:@Holly and Mary: I see your point on adding words like "adequate," "compelling," "sufficient" Darcy Southwell:I agree with Kathy, Blade, Gannon, and Stephanie. For providers, the front-line personnel who handle these reveal requests are not lawyers and are not in a position to make legal judgments about infringement or non-infringement. I would support going back to using the word "compelling reasons to refuse disclosure" in the original language of III(C)(2). Holly Raiche:@ Darcy - absolutely agree Mary Wong:Sorry - very old and vestigial Mary Wong:The fuller context for these open questions can be found between pp. 50-53 of the 29 Jan 2015 version of the draft Initial Report. Kathy:This is confusing - it might be good to slave the page to the screen now.. Alex Deacon 2:agreed Kathy:tx! steve metalitz:pages 51-52 of the text on screen Mary Wong:Section 1.3.2 (pp 12-13) for the questions Mary Wong:pp 51-52 for the actual context/fuller discussion Luc Seufer:I agree to agree steve metalitz:Middle of page 54, third bullet -- escalation of relay requests Mary Wong:And current draft language on escalation - page 13 of draft report James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I'm happy to send it to comment. Darcy Southwell:I agree it should be published for comment as it is today. James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:I would hope that we could form a good base for further discussion based on the public comments (Which I would hope will be peentiful and constructuve =) ) Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Mary, it would help to point to these bibbits in the report, given the length of the report. Frank Michlick:Thank you Graeme & everyone. Kathy:@Mary and All: in III, how did the words "but not limited to" become deleted? James Gannon [GNSO/NCSG]:Thanks all good call. Mary Wong:@Kathy, do you mean the disclosure text? Paul McGrady:Thanks! Luc Seufer:merci Darcy Southwell:Thanks. val sherman:Thanks! Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you and Bye Kathy:@Mary, yes the Reveal text Mary Wong:That was in Val's suggested edits Kathy:Then let's please put in back in because there is not agreement

1 0

Agenda, documents and suggestions for WG call on Tuesday 21 April 2015
by Mary Wong April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday 21 April is as follows; please also note the additional information/suggestions that follow. 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Finalize text yet to be agreed upon in draft Disclosure Framework intended for public comment Section III.C(2) & (3) (see attached) 3. Discuss remaining questions outstanding from draft Initial Report see below 4. Next steps/next meeting including circulation of final draft Initial Report, submission of additional statements (if any) and publication date for public comment The attached draft Disclosure Framework is essentially that which was circulated as the proposed final draft on 16 April, with two changes: (1) the updated and agreed language on providing evidence of authorization (as noted by Kiran as not having made it to the 16 April document); and (2) for clarity, the retention of ³square brackets² only with reference to language that still reflects two or more options (since the entire document will be open for public comment in any case). For agenda item #3, our vice-chairs have reviewed the open questions from the last-circulated version of the draft Initial Report (dated 29 January 2015), also attached. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion at the meeting, Graeme and Steve would like to offer the suggested answers below for discussion/agreement/other comments. Graeme and Steve¹s suggestions are highlighted in blue, with references to the context for these remaining questions (as page numbers from the draft Report) following in bold and underlined. The actual phrasing of each question can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the Executive Summary of the draft Report as well. Open Questions On Contactability and Responsiveness of Accredited P/P Providers: * The standard for maintaining a P/P provider¹s designated point of contact: - the person or team must be ³capable and authorized² (per the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) under the IRTP <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-03-07-en> ) (see pages 50-51 of the draft Initial Report) * The level of responsiveness required of a P/P provider once an abuse report is made to the designated point of contact while the requirement under Section 3.18.1 of the 2013 RAA <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en> (³taking reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond²) had been suggested previously, this is no longer needed as it has been superseded by the WG¹s specific recommendations on Relay and Disclosure (pages 51-52) * To ensure provider contactability P/P providers should be required to publish contact information on their website, modelled after Section 2.3 of the interim Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri vacy-proxy> in the 2013 RAA (pages 51-52) On Escalation of Relay Requests: * On minimum mandatory requirements for escalation of relay requests in the event of persistent delivery failure of electronic communications retain current language in draft Initial Report (including bracketed options) for public comment. > The current draft language reads as follows: >> "While the WG reached preliminary agreement on a provider¹s obligation to act >> in the event it becomes aware of a persistent delivery failure, the WG has >> yet to agree on obligatory next steps for a provider regarding escalation by >> a requestor. The following is the current language under consideration by the >> WG, with the options included in square brackets: > ³As part of an escalation process, and when the above-mentioned requirements > concerning a persistent delivery failure of an electronic communication have > been met, the provider [should] [must] upon request forward a further form of > notice to its customer. A provider should have the discretion to select the > most appropriate means of forwarding such a request [and to charge a > reasonable fee on a cost-recovery basis]. [Any such reasonable fee is to be > borne by the customer and not the requestor]. A provider shall have the right > to impose reasonable limits on the number of such requests made by the same > requestor.²² (pages 53-54) Finally, there was also a general question concerning the adequacy of the WG¹s recommendations as to what a P/P provider must include and publish in its Terms of Service, especially in regard to when a customer¹s contact details will be Published due to the customer¹s breach of one or more of the Terms of Service. While this is not a Charter-based question, WG members are encouraged when they come to review the final draft Initial Report to consider this question and provide additional feedback if necessary. 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

7 9

New version of Disclosure Framework document and Annex
by Mary Wong April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hello everyone, As discussed on the WG call earlier this week and as reflected in the latest version of our Work Plan (attached), we are sending you the latest version of the Disclosure Framework document and associated Annex, in the hope that between now and our next call we can iron out the remaining points of difference or uncertainty, especially on Section III.C and the Annex. In these latest versions, we have accepted the changes up to and including those that were presented for WG discussion up to this past Tuesday (including on attestation); you will see that we have also done the following: * Moved up the automation language (with a slight tweak to the ³human review² phrasing to reflect the WG discussion of 7 April); * Retained the last version of the language in III.C(2) & (3) as well as added as an alternative for discussion Val¹s latest suggested language for the same; * Used Todd¹s latest suggestion (with a slight change to the pretext phrasing) in III.C(5); and * Tried to clarify the Annex in line with the WG discussion this week. Please use these latest documents in continuing the on-list discussions and in preparation for our next WG call on Tuesday. 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

2 3

FW: PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
by James M. Bladel April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Not sure why this message didn’t hit the list. Apologies if you rec’d two copies. Thanks— J. From: James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:21 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E While I have no specific concerns with the changes for III.(c)(2), the changes for III.(c)(3) are concerning and I would either like to (a) hold publication of our Initial Report so we can discuss Tuesday, or (b) revert to the previous language. Thanks— J. From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:31 To: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams(a)turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E All, I think there are a lot of major language shifts taking place a) after our calls and b) in hopes of bringing final language into the Report that is being finalized today. Unfortunately, I think Val's language for III.C.2 and especially III.C.3 has enormous consequences and cast a major change to language that has remained essentially unchanged in our many weeks of discussion. The original language was essentially brought to the WG, accepted by the WG and ready to be put out for comment by the WG -- with brackets (as in so many other parts of the report) -- but all the time with the language of the committee that drafted it. Now we are being asked to review such changes a) under a fast deadline and b) with no in-person comment. I have to object - and call for the original language to stay. If we want to meet next week to talk about these new proposed changes, let's do that. But we have no precedent of accepting major changes without exploring them in person and on the calls -- as we have explored every other significant change. Best, Kathy : Thanks Kathy. On III(C)(2) and (3): I don’t think we ever had agreement on the language. “Adequate” was still bracketed precisely b/c we hadn’t agreed on that standard (I think the initial language was “compelling”, and I think it had changed a couple times in between). In the spirit of trying to address some of our loose ends and leave as little language bracketed as possible, I think Val’s proposal for III(C)(2) and (3) does a good job of finding a “third way” between the “compelling” camp and the “adequate” camp. Rather than pick b/w those two standards, it just says: let’s use the mirror of what the Requestor has to allege under II(A)(6)(a), II(B)(7)(A), and II(C)(6)(A). As a way of bridging the current gap that we’ve got, that seems reasonable to me: if the language is good for the Requestor, why wouldn’t it be good going the other way? Or, to put it another way: why would that language “seem a little ambiguous and hard to prove” going one way but not the other? I agree with you that we don’t want a lot of additional work and discussion at this point. I guess where I disagree with you is on which of the two options that is on the table – 1) fighting it out b/w “compelling” and “adequate” or 2) incorporating language that we’ve agreed to elsewhere – is more likely to lead to additional work and discussion. TW. 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] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:02 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E Hi Val, Thank you for new language as we work to close the report for publication. May I ask a few questions? In III.B.2 - the change from [existing] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its reasons for refusing to disclose to [new/proposed] (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose -- seems to raise the bar on the response of the Provider to the Requestor -- and there may be many Requests! So let me as, what are you thinking of in terms of the "specific reasons" that a Provider might have to give? How extensive or detailed would you like their answers to be? Re: III.C.2 and 3 I think the existing language is quite good -- with apologies, because I know the genuine good will in which the changes are offered, bringing in a Customer's "belief" and the Providers "belief" seems a little ambiguous and hard to prove. I look forward to looking at III.B.2 with you... but re: III.B.3, I think we had pretty good agreement on the existing language and these new proposals may result is a lot of additional work and discussion. Best, Kathy 1. On 4/14/2015 4:12 PM, Sherman, Valeriya wrote: PPSAI Team: Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report, we’d like to propose the following, hopefully non-contentious suggestions to III.B, C, and E. We look forward to your thoughts. B. … (1) … (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose. (3) … C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of the following: (1) … (2) the Customer has objectsed to the disclosure and has providesd [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question for believing (i) that it is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (Note: This language tracks the Requestor’s standards warranting disclosure, and is the opposite side of the same coin.) (3) the Provider has found provides [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure for believing (i) that the Customer is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that the Customer’s use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (4) … (5) … … E. If refusal to disclose is based on objection to disclosure by the Customer, Requestor be informed of the reasons for objection. (Could be consolidated with III B (2)). Valeriya Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> | Attorney at Law 202-973-2611 phone 202-263-4326 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She is not admitted in the District of Columbia. [cid:part4.06080404.07070902@kathykleiman.com]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

3 2

Section III-C-(5)
by Terri Stumme April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Perhaps I am over-simplifying, but since agreement has not been reached on the current language, and III-C-(3) actually gives the provider quite a bit of lee-way to decide against disclosure, I propose the following: the Provider has found, specific information, facts and/or circumstances that reveal the Requestor's trademark or copyright complaint is a pretextual means of obtaining the Customer's contact details solely for the purpose of contravening the Customer's personally identifiable information. 1. *Personally identifiable information* (PII) is any data that could potentially *identify* a specific individual. Any *information* that can be used to distinguish one person from another and can be used for de-anonymizing anonymous data can be considered PII. -- *Terri Stumme* *Intellligence Analyst*

6 9

PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
by Sherman, Valeriya April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

PPSAI Team: Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report, we’d like to propose the following, hopefully non-contentious suggestions to III.B, C, and E. We look forward to your thoughts. B. … (1) … (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose. (3) … C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of the following: (1) … (2) the Customer has objectsed to the disclosure and has providesd [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure, including without limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted content in question for believing (i) that it is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (Note: This language tracks the Requestor’s standards warranting disclosure, and is the opposite side of the same coin.) (3) the Provider has found provides [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure for believing (i) that the Customer is not infringing the Requestor’s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that the Customer’s use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; (4) … (5) … … E. If refusal to disclose is based on objection to disclosure by the Customer, Requestor be informed of the reasons for objection. (Could be consolidated with III B (2)). Valeriya Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> | Attorney at Law 202-973-2611 phone 202-263-4326 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She is not admitted in the District of Columbia. [cid:imagea17300.JPG@f2c065d8.45b3410b]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

6 7

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E
by Mary Wong April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Thanks for the proposal, Val. Since staff will be circulating a proposed final draft of the Disclosure Framework and Annex for everyone¹s review by Thursday, we¹d appreciate it if WG members could weigh in on Val¹s suggested language before then! 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: <Sherman>, Valeriya <vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 16:12 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - suggestions for III.B, C, and E > PPSAI Team: > > Given that we are getting ready to publish the initial report, we¹d like to > propose the following, hopefully non-contentious suggestions to III.B, C, and > E. > > We look forward to your thoughts. > > B. > > (1) > > (2) state to Requestor in writing or by electronic communication > its the specific reasons for refusing to disclose. > > (3) > > > C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent > with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of > the following: > > (1) > > (2) the Customer has objectsed to the disclosure and has > providesd [adequate sufficient] reasons against disclosure, including without > limitation a reasonable defense for its use of the trademark or copyrighted > content in question for believing (i) that it is not infringing the > Requestor¹s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) that its use of > the claimed intellectual property is defensible; > > (Note: This language tracks the Requestor¹s standards warranting disclosure, > and is the opposite side of the same coin.) > > (3) the Provider has found provides [adequate sufficient] > reasons against disclosure for believing (i) that the Customer is not > infringing the Requestor¹s claimed intellectual property rights, and/or (ii) > that the Customer¹s use of the claimed intellectual property is defensible; > > (4) > > (5) > > > > > E. If refusal to disclose is based on objection to disclosure by the > Customer, Requestor be informed of the reasons for objection. (Could be > consolidated with III B (2)). > > > > > > Valeriya Sherman <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> > | Attorney at Law > > > 202-973-2611 phone > 202-263-4326 fax > www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com> > vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com <mailto:vsherman@sgrlaw.com> > > > 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. > Suite 400 > Washington, D.C. 20007 > > > Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before > the United States Patent and Trademark Office. > She is not admitted in the District of Columbia. > > > <http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP > > > > Confidentiality Notice > This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended > exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This > communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or > confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the > named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or > disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message > in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies > of the message.

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 14 April 2015 at 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 14 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-14apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr>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 Justin Macy - BC Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Alex Deacon -IPC Stephanie Perrin - NCSG Phil Corwin - BC Chris Pelling - RrSG David Hughes - IPC Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Terri Stumme - BC Holly Raiche - ALAC Vicky Sheckler - IPC Susan Kawaguchi - BC Luc Seufer - RrSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Roger Carney - RrSG Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC James Bladel - RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Carlton Samuels - ALAC Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Todd Williams - IPC Richard Leaning - Individual ICANN staff: Mary Wong Danielle Andela Amy Bivins 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 14 April 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 14 April 2015 Chris Pelling:afternoon all Terri Agnew:Jim Bikoff is on audio Terri Agnew:Osvaldo Novoa has joined Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late Terri Agnew:Griffin Barnett has joined Holly Raiche:Is Kathy just on audio and not Adobe? Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined Terri Agnew:Kathy is on both Terri Agnew:Kiran Malancharuvil is on audio Kathy:Just in - Hi All! Luc Seufer:Hi Kathy Holly Raiche:Thanks Graeme Terri Agnew:Vicky Sheckler has joined Vicky Sheckler:sorry i'm late Mary Wong:Thanks, James - we will be sure to highlight both agreeements and differences as best we can, esp in the Exec Summary of the report Frank Michlick:Sorry for joining late. Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined Terri Agnew:David Hughes is on audio Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Holly Raiche:Could the relevant documents be put up please James Bladel:Trusted sender should be an option/best practice. Not obligatoin. But would make life easier for high-volume providers or reporters Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ steve Mary Wong:@Holly, apologies for missing your comment - were you referring to the Annex that Steve is discussing? That should be on your AC screen. Holly Raiche:Nothing is on my screen! Kiran Malancharuvil:@Holly - I see the Annex. You may want to log out and back in? Holly Raiche:@ Krian - thanks - I can see the chat column and the column on the right - just nothing in the middle! will try again Terri Agnew:@Holly, did logging back in help? Volker Greimann:Michele is right... I do that _all_ _the_ time! Michele Neylon:yes you do Michele Neylon:bloody German :) James Bladel::) Michele Neylon:Kathy - isn't that sort of inferred? Luc Seufer:don't you worry Michele, once the accreditation will be in place Volker will have to pinky swear he won't do it again. Kathy:Maybe but everything in brackets, I think, is in a "maybe" Mary Wong:@Kathy, we can call that (and other square bracketed language elsewhere) out specifically as needing community feedback - since that's the "device" we are using to indicate places where the WG has not yet reached consensus? val sherman:+1 kiran Vicky Sheckler:given the discussion, it seems there are pblms with requiring a specific jdx Luc Seufer:hum that's basic international law. You can serve us a foreign court order all you want, if it hasn't follow the exequatur process we won't act on it. Kathy:+1 Volker - and under the Providers' laws Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ Michele Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree. Overspecification is a problem. Appreciate the clarification from Volker. Michele Neylon:people will hopefuly raise issues via the comments Michele Neylon:ie. the comment period James Bladel:Need to drop the call a bit early. Looking forward to the publication of the Initial Report. Important Milestone for this group! Kathy:and removal of the word "only Kathy:"only" Mary Wong:@Kathy, wouldn't removing the "intent to deceive" language be preferable? So the standard remains "knowingly false representations"? Kathy:Tx for the good discussion of the Annex, Steve! Kathy:@Mary: I think so. Also puzzling over the word "only" when that edit is made... Terri Agnew:Carlton Samuels has joined Vicky Sheckler:think we should leave "only" b/c I think the reps cover the issues kathy mentioned. But I need to confirm this Carlton Samuels:Morning all. Had a whale of a time coming getting on Holly Raiche:Morning Carlton Vicky Sheckler:(i.e. leave in the document) Kathy:Hi Carlton! Mary Wong:@Kathy, @Vicky, our read of it (not being the drafters) is that retaining "only" while striking out "intent to deceive" would make it clear that there is a single standard for the process, ie a false rep was made knowingly. Holly Raiche:I'd be happy with privacy service as well Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ val Kathy:I think we put the whole paragraph out for public comment - with a paragraph to ICANN Community sharing the questions we have and the input we are seeking val sherman:how is it easier for the provider to balance and figure out which purpose is main? Michele Neylon:exactly - that's why I'd prefer "privacy service" instead of "privacy" by itself Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ steve metalitz that usigng privacy swallos the rule Kathy:Right! Michele Neylon:but you can't expect us to put our clients in danger .. Alex Deacon:we can't have vague language here and work hard to ensure we don't create a loophole where, to borrow Steve's wording, the exception swallows the rule. Michele Neylon:I know we've had requests for reveal where if we had our client would have ened up dead Michele Neylon:the request => other motivation eg. doing them harm Carlton Samuels:Why would we care aabout the motivation? We have concealed personal data by design and effected by contract. All we need do is to demand you do not break the contract without well-founded cause. And we're giving guidance as to possible reasons for breaking contract; slam dunk cases or when in doubt, seek advice. Holly Raiche:AGre - maybe word in the revere - the reason mainly NOT in relation to the trademark/IP issue as being claimed Kathy:I think we all agree with Volker -- but how to reflect in the language? Holly Raiche:@Kathy - agreed Kathy:What if we remove the words [solely] and [mainly]? Alex Deacon:"for the avoidance of doubt..." Vicky Sheckler:need to be careful that we don't fall into last week's issues about unncessarily expanding this beyond the narrow pretext purpose of this paragraph val sherman:true, Vicky Mary Wong:It's the same language in all three places now, Steve. Kathy:where did the automation language go? Mary Wong:@Kathy it is still at the bottom of the document; we haven't changed it pending final discussion (per notes on the right from last week) Kathy:@Mary: tx! val sherman:Kathy's latest language captures that possibility. Kiran Malancharuvil:I would like to continue the discussion on attestation on the list, but I don't think we have time today Mary Wong:We will remove the "human review" phrase unless there are objections/suggestions. Kathy:Good call! Kathy:Tx Steve! Kiran Malancharuvil:Alternatively, int he spirit of getting it out, I'm okay with what it states and minority views repped Kiran Malancharuvil:thanks Steve! Kiran Malancharuvil::) val sherman:thanks all! Carlton Samuels:Thanks all Kathy:@Mary: can you put it in italics first?

1 0

before removing...
by Kathy Kleiman April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Hi Mary, The following comment in chat flashed by at the end: "Mary: We will remove the "human review" phrase unless there are objections/suggestions." Sorry, but I have to object because I am missing the context. Could you kindly post the old paragraph and the new paragraph and we'll all take a close look? Best and tx, Kathy

2 1

PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation
by Sherman, Valeriya April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all: Following up on our productive discussion earlier this week, we’d like to offer a suggestion to modify the “attestation” provisions (II.A.6.c; II.B.7.d; and II.C.6.c) to require a statement by the requestor specifying his/her authority for making the request, or basis for agency if he or she is not the rights holder. For example: “Where the signatory is not the rights holder, he/she must attest that he/she is an authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and having the authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request.” We could even spell out the statement for the signatory to make in conjunction with each request : “I attest that I am the rights holder / authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and have the authority to make the representations and claims in this request.” These statements of authority and agency are to be made in good faith, under the penalty of perjury – just like representations forming the basis for the request and the requestor’s promise to use the data disclosed only for limited enumerated purposes – and the falsity of these statements would be redressable by the method(s) we agree on. We believe this approach fairly balances the considerations expressed by various WG members and look forward to your thoughts. Best, Val Valeriya Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> | Attorney at Law 202-973-2611 phone 202-263-4326 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> vsherman(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She is not admitted in the District of Columbia. [cid:image143f58.JPG@618ca7b2.49807542]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

16 39