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.
·YesàWill you be using a 3^rd party>No>Not eligible for P/P.
·YesàWill you be using a 3^rd 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/) 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.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
-------------------------------
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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@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 3^rd 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> [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: “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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg