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@icann.org From: John Horton <john.horton@legitscript.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 13:11 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@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@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@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@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@icann.org
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 09:20 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, Michele Blacknight <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 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@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@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@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@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