I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to
exclude a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making an
abuse report.
Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long
as there are public data register like phone books or public whois
as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data.
Volker
Hi James,
=====================================================================
As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will
stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change
that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please
contact me off list.
==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be
an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal
commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid
identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net>
wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I
consider
undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial
entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob
Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the
difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring
commercial entities
from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm
and we should
fix that. The providers created the problem in the first
place, so
allowing them to continue to control it simply continues
the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and
other
groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker
Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial
entities from
using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the
sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by
creating a
blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to
legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate
ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which
categories of
clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial
entities,
create a definition of "comercial entities" and
then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a
legitimate
bussiness, but their sites can be identified as
spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money,
therefore a
business. I am sure there are other methods to deal
with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not
derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse
here....but if
there is a resounding
response of "yes indeed, bar commercial
entities from
using P/P services", then
how are you going to propose that p/p proxy
service
providers determine who is a
commercial entity, particularly in
jurisdictions which
have declined to regulate
the provision of goods and services over the
Internet? I
don't like asking
questions that walk us into corners we cannot
get out of.
Do the fraudsters we
are worried about actually apply for business
numbers and
articles of
incorporation in the jurisdictions in which
they operate?
I operate in a
jurisdiction where this distinction is often
extremely
difficult to make. THe
determination would depend on the precise use
being made
of the domain
name....which gets ICANN squarely into
content analysis,
and which can hardly be
done for new registrations, even if t were
within ICANN's
remit. I am honestly
not trying to be difficult, but I just have
not heard a
good answer to this
problem.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche
wrote:
Jin and all
I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The
important
task here is
agreeing on the questions to be asked of the
SO/ACs. So
we need to get
back to framing the questions - not answering
them,
however tempting that
may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial
entities' should be
barred is still
a useful question to ask. The next question
would be
whether there are
possible distinctions that should be drawn
between an
entity that can use
the service and one that can't and, if so,
where is the
line drawn. I agree
with the discussion on how difficult that
will be because
many entities
that have corporate status also have
reasonable grounds
for wanting the
protection of such a service (human rights
organisations
or women's refuges
come to mind). But that is the sort of
response we are
seeking from
others outside of this group - so let's not
prejudge
answers. Let's only
frame the questions that will help us come to
some
sensible answers.
Otherwise, we'll never get to the next
steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I
have a long day
ahead on
Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at
2.00am won't
help. So Ill read
the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2
weeks for
those who do not use
the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the
last Group
teleconference, it might be helpful, as a
next step, if we
reached a
consensus on the groups of questions before
sending them
out to
SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing
on the name
of each
group; and second, streamlining the questions
in each
group.
In the first step, we could consider
alternative headings
(perhaps
REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove
duplicative or
vague
questions.
This crystallization would make the questions
more
approachable, and
encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal
<dblumenthal@pir.org>
Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST
To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's
closing chat
question
Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t
wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a
notion that
others
might be extracted? And where do we
include/modify
questions
to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main
category, which
may be
instructive in itself in guiding how we
proceed
organizationally. Regardless, the consensus
of commenters
has
been that his document is a significant
improvement over
where
we were before, and I suggest that we use it
as a baseline.
However, we still have work to do on it. Feel
free to
suggest
modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.