On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).

While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM

To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
From: Victoria Sheckler
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM
To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report

Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.

From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report

+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.

Kathy

On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.

Holly

On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.

Further, as regards this paragraph—

The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added)

-- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM
To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report

I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.

If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

http://www.blacknight.host/

http://blog.blacknight.com/

http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage

http://www.technology.ie

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Social: http://mneylon.social

Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon
Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34
To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report

Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.

-James

From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong
Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21
To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report

Dear WG members,

Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.

The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4889

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

_______________________________________________
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

Terri Stumme

Intelligence Analyst