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 shouldn’t wait a week:

           “John 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

_______________________________________________
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.