SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked
on the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not
support the inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions
without the opposing questions. To do so would be to reflect a
fundamental bias. I would prefer to say something along the lines
of the use of proxy services by commercial entities could be
restricted by national law, where such law applies.
I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial
activity. It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such
restrictions on Internet activity through its limited remit over
domain name registration, a point which we have made repeatedly.
If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view
leading) text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing
statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am
surprised to see announced at this late date.
cheers Stephanie
On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton
wrote:
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