Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version. I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete.There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG* 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include: -What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? -Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3^rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals?(Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) -What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? -How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1] <#_ftn1>[1], 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. [1] *Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial. Others noted that “non-profit” status is limited to only a few countries. * *Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3^rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus /are not processing the financial transactions directly/. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. * *Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws – some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany).*** 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.” This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: ·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? ·Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <#_ftnref1>[1]The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
Hi Kathy, Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers *and* seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers *or* seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case? Thanks! 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed.
For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*
1.3.3.1 REVEAL
The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution]
Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW
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[1] <#14d0c268aac32126__ftn1>[1], 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. [1]
*Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial. Others noted that “non-profit” status is limited to only a few countries. *
*Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. *
*Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws – some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany).*
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.”
This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that:
"Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet.
Input requested on the full issues, including questions below:
· 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?
· Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
------------------------------
<#14d0c268aac32126__ftnref1>[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I will leave it to Kathy to respond, John, except to say that unfortunately our typo edits crossed in the rush to get this out by the deadline last night. A deadline is, I presume, a deadline, one does not get to put a new version in the next day. (If I misunderstand ICANN procedures, I am hoping Mary will be helpful as always and enlighten me:)). Stephanie Perrin On 2015-05-01 7:09, John Horton wrote:
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers /and/ seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers /or/ seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript
*FollowLegitScript*: 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete.There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed.
For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*
1.3.3.1 REVEAL
The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
-What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
-Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3^rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals?(Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
-What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
-How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution]
Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW
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[1] <#14d0c268aac32126__ftn1>[1], 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. [1]
*Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial. Others noted that “non-profit” status is limited to only a few countries. *
*Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3^rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus /are not processing the financial transactions directly/. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. *
*Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws – some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany).*
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.”
This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that:
"Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet.
Input requested on the full issues, including questions below:
·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?
·Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<#14d0c268aac32126__ftnref1>[1]The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto: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
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. /* *Steve, Graeme and Mary, /I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper <https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf>as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report. Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy :
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers /and/ seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers /or/ seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript
*FollowLegitScript*: 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete.There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed.
For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3, *Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG*
1.3.3.1 REVEAL
The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
-What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
-Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3^rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals?(Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
-What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
-How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution]
Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW
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[1] <#14d0c268aac32126__ftn1>[1], 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. [1]
*Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial. Others noted that “non-profit” status is limited to only a few countries. *
*Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3^rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus /are not processing the financial transactions directly/. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. *
*Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws – some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany).*
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.”
This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that:
"Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet.
Input requested on the full issues, including questions below:
·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?
·Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<#14d0c268aac32126__ftnref1>[1]The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_Jurisdic...> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report. Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy, Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case? Thanks! 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version. I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG’s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its “Reveal” recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include: - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from “non-commercial” to commercial. Others noted that “non-profit” status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws – some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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.” This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: • 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? • Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law? ________________________________ [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: 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? Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction. Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: 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? Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
Kiran So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced? In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission 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://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission. Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement. If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
Kiran, I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list. If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement. So far we've got: * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader. @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission? Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Frank, Once again, we are not individuals, we are companies. Please do not attempt to amend a submission this is not yours. Staff and the WG chairs have accepted this statement as is. There is no requirement in the PDP process that I am aware of to sign an individual or a company name to any position. If that is the case, we have a lot of extra work to do attributing all of the various points in the initial report to their proponents, drafters, etc. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com> wrote:
Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well. -Susan On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com> wrote:
Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper< https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written.
------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws - some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: EURO 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? EURO Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
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
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well. -Susan On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran, I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list. If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement. So far we've got: * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader. @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission? Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well. -Susan On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran, I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list. If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement. So far we've got: * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader. @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission? Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Mary, Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well. -Susan On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran, I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list. If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement. So far we've got: * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader. @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission? Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Mary/Staff - These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies? J. From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Mary, Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well. -Susan On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran, I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list. If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement. So far we've got: * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader. @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission? Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
James/Mary/Staff, Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear. There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.). Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list. Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Mary/Staff - These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies? J. From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Mary, Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” Thanks, Kiran From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well. -Susan On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran, I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list. If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement. So far we've got: * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader. @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission? Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency. Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm? J. On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonito r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmon itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo nitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman
<kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white
paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U se_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman
<kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list. If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves. Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm. Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonito r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmon itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo nitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman > > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k > athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: > > Hi John, > Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." > > What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement > which, > although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting > input on > behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. > > Steve, Graeme and Mary, > I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore > desires > public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement > desire > public comment..." > (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public > comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous > WHOIS data > for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial > activity and provides the above-referenced white > > paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U > se_-_ > Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for > consideration." > We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in > the > main report. > > Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement > speaks > only for its group. > Tx, > Kathy > : > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers > and > seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think > the way > it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking > about > mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true > in the > literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and > note > that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by > men or > young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, > while > others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just > wonder if > the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this > particular > case? > > Thanks! > > 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman > > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k > athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: > Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, > Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the > Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word > version as > it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the > published > version. > > I include a pasted version below for easy reading. > Best, > Kathy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ------- > Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, > Members of > the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > > We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on > which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI > Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a > number > of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and > which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply > discussed. > For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and > discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like > to see > Section 1.3.3 written. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ------------------------------------------- > 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus > within > the WG > 1.3.3.1 REVEAL > The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key > details > of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). > There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG > has > not reached consensus. These include: > > - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event > that a > Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used > (current > recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? > > - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every > rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the > WG seek > to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to > avoid > unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for > Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG > has > agreed to by consensus.) > > - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed > and > encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a > reasonable > defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a > copyright or trademark infringement allegation? > > - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial > requests > from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of > their > domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps > purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol > refuses > to act across national lines in matters of political, military, > religious > and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. > Article 3, > Interpol Constitution] > Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. > > 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW > 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[1][1], 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. [1] > Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership > drives are > often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking > privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority > political > groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, > organizations > committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, > and > publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and > their > representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere > collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their > status > from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² > status is limited to only a few countries. > Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based > businesses > (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial > transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as > PayPal, and > thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. > Accordingly, > many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the > proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for > this > reason. > Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far > beyond > the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of > which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined > and > properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). > 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 > This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG > and > has not reached consensus as others submitted that: > "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain > registration is > not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for > privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against > vulnerable > groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish > to > exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the > Internet. > Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: > € 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? > € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's > scope and > mandate and the proper province of national law? > > > ________________________________ > > [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged > that P/P > services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both > commercial and non-commercial. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Understood. If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself. Thanks— J. On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmoni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm on itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong > <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > > We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. > > 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kiran Malancharuvil > ><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@mark >mo > nitor.com>> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 > To: Kathy Kleiman > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> > Cc: > "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > >> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> >> >><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy >>@k >> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>is." >> >> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement >> which, >> although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting >> input on >> behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >> >> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore >> desires >> public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement >> desire >> public comment..." >> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public >> comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous >> WHOIS data >> for persons and entities engaged in active transactional >>commercial >> activity and provides the above-referenced white >> >> >>paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial >>_U >> se_-_ >> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >> consideration." >> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in >> the >> main report. >> >> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >> speaks >> only for its group. >> Tx, >> Kathy >> : >> Hi Kathy, >> >> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers >> and >> seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think >> the way >> it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking >> about >> mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true >> in the >> literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and >> note >> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by >> men or >> young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, >> while >> others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just >> wonder if >> the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this >> particular >> case? >> >> Thanks! >> >> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> >> >><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy >>@k >> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, >> Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in >>the >> Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word >> version as >> it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the >> published >> version. >> >> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>-- >> ----- >> ------- >> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >> Members of >> the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >> >> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics >>on >> which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI >> Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a >> number >> of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG >>and >> which need considerable work. These are issues well known and >>deeply >> discussed. >> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and >> discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like >> to see >> Section 1.3.3 written. >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>-- >> ----- >> ------------------------------------------- >> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >> within >> the WG >> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key >> details >> of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim >>Report). >> There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG >> has >> not reached consensus. These include: >> >> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event >> that a >> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >> (current >> recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? >> >> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every >> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the >> WG seek >> to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to >> avoid >> unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for >> Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the >>WG >> has >> agreed to by consensus.) >> >> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>allowed >> and >> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >> reasonable >> defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a >> copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >> >> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >> requests >> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of >> their >> domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but >>perhaps >> purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol >> refuses >> to act across national lines in matters of political, military, >> religious >> and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. >> Article 3, >> Interpol Constitution] >> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >> >> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >> 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[1][1], 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. [1] >> Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership >> drives are >> often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >> political >> groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, >> organizations >> committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, >> and >> publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and >> their >> representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the >>mere >> collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their >> status >> from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that >>³non-profit² >> status is limited to only a few countries. >> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >> businesses >> (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their >>financial >> transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as >> PayPal, and >> thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. >> Accordingly, >> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>for >> this >> reason. >> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far >> beyond >> the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some >>of >> which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined >> and >> properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). >> 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 >> This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG >> and >> has not reached consensus as others submitted that: >> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >> registration is >> not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for >> privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against >> vulnerable >> groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish >> to >> exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the >> Internet. >> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >> € 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? >> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >> scope and >> mandate and the proper province of national law? >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged >> that P/P >> services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both >> commercial and non-commercial. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> >> >>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mai >>lt >> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mai >>lt >> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate. Enjoy your Saturday! Kiran -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement Understood. If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself. Thanks— J. On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma rkm on itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong > <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > > We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. > > 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kiran Malancharuvil > ><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >ark >mo > nitor.com>> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 > To: Kathy Kleiman > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> > Cc: > "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" > ><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > >> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> >> >><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>thy >>@k >> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>is." >> >> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >> >> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>supplemental statement desire public comment..." >> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>above-referenced white >> >> >>paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>ial >>_U >> se_-_ >> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>consideration." >> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>in the main report. >> >> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >> speaks only for its group. >> Tx, >> Kathy >> : >> Hi Kathy, >> >> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >> >> Thanks! >> >> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> >> >><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>thy >>@k >> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>version. >> >> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>--- >>-- >> ----- >> ------- >> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >> >> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>discussed. >> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>--- >>-- >> ----- >> ------------------------------------------- >> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>within the WG >> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>the Interim Report). >> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>WG has not reached consensus. These include: >> >> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event >> that a >> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >> action)? >> >> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every >> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>(Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >> >> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>allowed >> and >> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >> >> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >> requests >> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>[Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>because of the enormous differences of law. >> Article 3, >> Interpol Constitution] >> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >> >> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>status is limited to only a few countries. >> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>financial transactions directly. >> Accordingly, >> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>for this reason. >> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>and application (e.g., Germany). >> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>submitted that: >> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >> € 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? >> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >> scope and >> mandate and the proper province of national law? >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> >> >>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>mai >>lt >> >>o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>mai >>lt >> >>o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
So just for my personal enlightenment, this means that an individual who does not have the necessary power to bind their employer by their sole signature may nonetheless be a signatory of a statement within the scope of an ICANN WG but a lawyer who has all necessary power from their client will sign such statement under their name as an individual? This sounds kind of queer to me. Luc
On 02 May 2015, at 20:08, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
-----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" > > <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma > rkm > on > itor.com>> wrote: > > Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the > statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in > several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is > from the proponents of the transactional distinction. > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >> >> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >> >> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >> ark >> mo >> nitor.com>> >> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >> To: Kathy Kleiman >> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >> Cc: >> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >> >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> >>> >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>> thy >>> @k >>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi John, >>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>> is." >>> >>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>> >>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>> above-referenced white >>> >>> >>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>> ial >>> _U >>> se_-_ >>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>> consideration." >>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>> in the main report. >>> >>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>> speaks only for its group. >>> Tx, >>> Kathy >>> : >>> Hi Kathy, >>> >>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> >>> >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>> thy >>> @k >>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>> version. >>> >>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> --- >>> -- >>> ----- >>> ------- >>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>> >>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>> discussed. >>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> --- >>> -- >>> ----- >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>> within the WG >>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>> the Interim Report). >>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>> >>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event >>> that a >>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>> action)? >>> >>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every >>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>> >>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>> allowed >>> and >>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>> >>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>> requests >>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>> Article 3, >>> Interpol Constitution] >>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>> >>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>> financial transactions directly. >>> Accordingly, >>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>> for this reason. >>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>> submitted that: >>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>> € 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? >>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>> scope and >>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> >>> >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>> mai >>> lt >>> >>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>> mai >>> lt >>> >>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------
It comes down to membership categories in the constituency and the nature of the participation in ICANN as a result. It's really quite simple and has nothing to do with the power to "bind" an employer. Some is us are representatives of company members, some of us are individual members who have employers. Sorry you find that strange, perhaps you can take it up the GNSO Review working group? K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Luc SEUFER <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
So just for my personal enlightenment, this means that an individual who does not have the necessary power to bind their employer by their sole signature may nonetheless be a signatory of a statement within the scope of an ICANN WG but a lawyer who has all necessary power from their client will sign such statement under their name as an individual?
This sounds kind of queer to me.
Luc
On 02 May 2015, at 20:08, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
-----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: > > Kiran > > So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be > referenced? > > In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission > > 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> > Social: http://mneylon.social > Random Stuff: http://michele.irish > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > > >> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >> >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma >> rkm >> on >> itor.com>> wrote: >> >> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in >> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>> >>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>> >>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>> ark >>> mo >>> nitor.com>> >>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>> Cc: >>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>> >>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >>> >>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> >>>> >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>> thy >>>> @k >>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>> is." >>>> >>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>> >>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>> above-referenced white >>>> >>>> >>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>>> ial >>>> _U >>>> se_-_ >>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>> consideration." >>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>>> in the main report. >>>> >>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>> speaks only for its group. >>>> Tx, >>>> Kathy >>>> : >>>> Hi Kathy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> >>>> >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>> thy >>>> @k >>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>>> version. >>>> >>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>> Best, >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> ------- >>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>> >>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>> discussed. >>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>>> within the WG >>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>> the Interim Report). >>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>> >>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event >>>> that a >>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>> action)? >>>> >>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every >>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>> >>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>> allowed >>>> and >>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>> >>>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>>> requests >>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>> Article 3, >>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>> >>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>> financial transactions directly. >>>> Accordingly, >>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>>> for this reason. >>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>>> submitted that: >>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>> € 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? >>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>> scope and >>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> >>>> >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>> mai >>>> lt >>>> >>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>> mai >>>> lt >>>> >>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once. You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm. J. On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
-----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" > ><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma >rkm >on > itor.com>> wrote: > > Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in >several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >from the proponents of the transactional distinction. > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >> >> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >> >> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> >><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>ark >>mo >> nitor.com>> >> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >> To: Kathy Kleiman >> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >> Cc: >> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >> >><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> >>> >>><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>thy >>>@k >>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi John, >>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>is." >>> >>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>> >>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>above-referenced white >>> >>> >>>paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>>ial >>>_U >>> se_-_ >>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>consideration." >>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>>in the main report. >>> >>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>> speaks only for its group. >>> Tx, >>> Kathy >>> : >>> Hi Kathy, >>> >>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> >>> >>><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>thy >>>@k >>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>>the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>>version. >>> >>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>--- >>>-- >>> ----- >>> ------- >>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>> >>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>>of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>discussed. >>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>--- >>>-- >>> ----- >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>>within the WG >>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>the Interim Report). >>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>>WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>> >>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>event >>> that a >>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>> action)? >>> >>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>every >>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>>(Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>> >>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>allowed >>> and >>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>>the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>> >>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>> requests >>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>>[Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>because of the enormous differences of law. >>> Article 3, >>> Interpol Constitution] >>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>> >>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>>gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>>of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>>donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>status is limited to only a few countries. >>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>>their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>financial transactions directly. >>> Accordingly, >>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>>for this reason. >>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>and application (e.g., Germany). >>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>>submitted that: >>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>>eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>>of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>> € 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? >>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>> scope and >>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> >>> >>>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>mai >>>lt >>> >>>o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>mai >>>lt >>> >>>o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
First, we never established that only companies and not individuals could sign a statement. I now understand the basis for your confusion. You have an incorrect premise. Second, I never said that these individuals were representing different clients. I would have no way of knowing that, as attorney/client privilege generally prohibits that information from being shared without express client permission to do so, and I certainly never asked. It's none of my (or the working groups) business. Attorneys are allowed to participate in their own behalf in the interest of their client(s) through the IPC as an individual or in any other constituency or even on their own behalf. Some attorney's indicate clients in SOIs and others do not, as the work is not always directly related to a specific client interest. If you are saying that attorney's can't participate as individuals, that they must represent an entire firms collective interest or a specific client, and must disclose that, I think we have a bigger problem, which would kick off a much bigger disclosure of client interests. For example, who does Kathy Kleiman represent? She's an attorney with Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth. On who's behalf is she signing her statement? K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:18 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
-----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: > > Kiran > > So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be > referenced? > > In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission > > 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> > Social: http://mneylon.social > Random Stuff: http://michele.irish > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > > >> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >> >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma >> rkm >> on >> itor.com>> wrote: >> >> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in >> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>> >>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>> >>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>> ark >>> mo >>> nitor.com>> >>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>> Cc: >>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>> >>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >>> >>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> >>>> >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>> thy >>>> @k >>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>> is." >>>> >>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>> >>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>> above-referenced white >>>> >>>> >>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>>> ial >>>> _U >>>> se_-_ >>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>> consideration." >>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>>> in the main report. >>>> >>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>> speaks only for its group. >>>> Tx, >>>> Kathy >>>> : >>>> Hi Kathy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> >>>> >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>> thy >>>> @k >>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>>> version. >>>> >>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>> Best, >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> ------- >>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>> >>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>> discussed. >>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>>> within the WG >>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>> the Interim Report). >>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>> >>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>> event >>>> that a >>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>> action)? >>>> >>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>> every >>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>> >>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>> allowed >>>> and >>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>> >>>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>>> requests >>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>> Article 3, >>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>> >>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>> financial transactions directly. >>>> Accordingly, >>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>>> for this reason. >>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>>> submitted that: >>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>> € 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? >>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>> scope and >>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> >>>> >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>> mai >>>> lt >>>> >>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>> mai >>>> lt >>>> >>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
All, We are happy to be listed as SGR. Jim Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP -----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: > > Kiran > > So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be > referenced? > > In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission > > 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> > Social: http://mneylon.social > Random Stuff: http://michele.irish > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > > >> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >> >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma >> rkm >> on >> itor.com>> wrote: >> >> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in >> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>> >>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>> >>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>> ark >>> mo >>> nitor.com>> >>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>> Cc: >>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>> >>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >>> >>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> >>>> >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>> thy >>>> @k >>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>> is." >>>> >>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>> >>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>> above-referenced white >>>> >>>> >>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>>> ial >>>> _U >>>> se_-_ >>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>> consideration." >>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>>> in the main report. >>>> >>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>> speaks only for its group. >>>> Tx, >>>> Kathy >>>> : >>>> Hi Kathy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> >>>> >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>> thy >>>> @k >>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>>> version. >>>> >>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>> Best, >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> ------- >>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>> >>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>> discussed. >>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>>> within the WG >>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>> the Interim Report). >>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>> >>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>> event >>>> that a >>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>> action)? >>>> >>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>> every >>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>> >>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>> allowed >>>> and >>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>> >>>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>>> requests >>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>> Article 3, >>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>> >>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>> financial transactions directly. >>>> Accordingly, >>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>>> for this reason. >>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>>> submitted that: >>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>> € 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? >>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>> scope and >>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> >>>> >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>> mai >>>> lt >>>> >>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>> mai >>>> lt >>>> >>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Hi Jim, Very generous. Staff - please make that change to the statement I submitted, if it is deemed that is the correct way to represent these signatories. However, if any individual attorney or any individual at all wants to sign to any statement in their appropriate capacity as a member of the ICANN community, I strenuously object to ANY attempt to stop them from doing so. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
All,
We are happy to be listed as SGR.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil
<Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markm oni to r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bou nce s@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: > They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the > submission. > > Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but > companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible > when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated > statement. > > If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you > can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that > information. > > K > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: >> >> Kiran >> >> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be >> referenced? >> >> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission >> >> 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> >> Social: http://mneylon.social >> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish >> ------------------------------- >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>> >>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ma >>> rkm >>> on >>> itor.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >>> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in >>> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >>> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>>> >>>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> >>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>>> ark >>>> mo >>>> nitor.com>> >>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>>> Cc: >>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >>>> >>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >>>> >>>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>>> thy >>>>> @k >>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>>> is." >>>>> >>>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>>> >>>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>>> above-referenced white >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commerc >>>>> ial >>>>> _U >>>>> se_-_ >>>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>>> consideration." >>>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed >>>>> in the main report. >>>>> >>>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>>> speaks only for its group. >>>>> Tx, >>>>> Kathy >>>>> : >>>>> Hi Kathy, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note >>>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:ka >>>>> thy >>>>> @k >>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has >>>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published >>>>> version. >>>>> >>>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kathy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> --- >>>>> -- >>>>> ----- >>>>> ------- >>>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>>> >>>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, >>>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>>> discussed. >>>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> --- >>>>> -- >>>>> ----- >>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>>>> within the WG >>>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>>> the Interim Report). >>>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the >>>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>>> >>>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>>> event >>>>> that a >>>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>>> action)? >>>>> >>>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>>> every >>>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? >>>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>>> >>>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>>> allowed >>>>> and >>>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in >>>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>>> >>>>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>>>> requests >>>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries >>>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>>> Article 3, >>>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>>> >>>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, >>>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom >>>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a >>>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct >>>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>>> financial transactions directly. >>>>> Accordingly, >>>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely >>>>> for this reason. >>>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others >>>>> submitted that: >>>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining >>>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights >>>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>>> € 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? >>>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>>> scope and >>>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>>> mai >>>>> lt >>>>> >>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>< >>>>> mai >>>>> lt >>>>> >>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Hello everyone, Just to summarize where we are on this - as of the 30 April deadline, two Additional Statements were received, both of which were also posted by their respective submitters to this mailing list. One was sent in by Kiran on behalf of DomainTools; Facebook Inc.; LegitScript; MarkMonitor; and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP. Another was sent in by Kathy on behalf of herself, Stephanie Perrin, David Cake and James Gannon (members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group), and Holly Raiche (member of the At-Large Advisory Committee). We plan to attribute each statement as noted above in Annex F of the Initial Report, which is where a placeholder for such statements had been put in the draft Initial Report. We have also, as requested by the co-vice-chairs, created a page on the WG wiki that references documents and discussions that were pertinent to the WG’s discussion of the “transactional” issue, and will include a hyperlink to this page from Section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report. More generally, with the co-vice-chairs’ approval, we will be replicating all the WG’s preliminary conclusions and open questions in a survey (using SureveyMonkey), and offering that as an option to commenters if a survey format (with space for free form text) might be easier for them and their communities to respond to. Some WG members may know that this is a tool we have begun to use to facilitate community input for recent GNSO WGs, e.g. T e GNSO Policy & Implementation WG. Being an additional tool, the survey will not preclude, replace or displace a commenter’s ability to submit comments in the more “traditional” format, and this will be highlighted in the background and directions for submitting public comment. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 11:47 To: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Hi Jim,
Very generous. Staff - please make that change to the statement I submitted, if it is deemed that is the correct way to represent these signatories.
However, if any individual attorney or any individual at all wants to sign to any statement in their appropriate capacity as a member of the ICANN community, I strenuously object to ANY attempt to stop them from doing so.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
All,
We are happy to be listed as SGR.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
> James/Mary/Staff, > > Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the > various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear. > > There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as > such > (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through > individual participation in the group - firm name provided as > guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that > appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an > entity with a single representative, corporations who are members >as > a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.). > > Where support is given to this statement as a company, company >names > are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, > individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to >list. > > Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to > clarify. > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel > <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: > > Mary/Staff - > > These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the > names of individuals, or companies? > > J. > > > From: Kiran Malancharuvil > > ><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@mark >m > oni > to > r.com>> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 > To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, >"Prosser, > Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank > Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, > "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" > <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> > Cc: PPSAI WG > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > > Mary, > > Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from > Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on > behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > From: Kiran Malancharuvil > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM > To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; > mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > > Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned >(LegitScript, > DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not > individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional > distinction.” > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > > >From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bo >u > nce > s@ > icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf >Of > Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM > To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick > Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > > Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan > Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. > > Phone - 650 485-6064 > > From: <Prosser>, Susan > <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM > To: Frank Michlick > <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> > Cc: >"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > > DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental > statement as well. > > -Susan > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick > <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: > Kiran, > > I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time > restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his > company name to the list. > > If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get >approval, > maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) > that support/worded the statement. > > So far we've got: > > * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor > * Legitscript > > I do think that any statement included with this report should be > attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the > background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments >that > are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the > eye of the reader. > > @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in > a statement after its submission? > > Best regards, > /Frank > -- > Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. > >> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >> They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the >> submission. >> >> Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but >> companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible >> when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated >> statement. >> >> If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you >> can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that >> information. >> >> K >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >>> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>> <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be >>> referenced? >>> >>> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the >>>submission >>> >>> 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> >>> Social: http://mneylon.social >>> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish >>> ------------------------------- >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: >>>370845 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>> >>>> >>>><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>>>a >>>> rkm >>>> on >>>> itor.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >>>> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before >>>>in >>>> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >>>> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >>>> >>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>> MarkMonitor >>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>>>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>>>> >>>>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>><Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ >>>>>m >>>>> ark >>>>> mo >>>>> nitor.com>> >>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>>>> Cc: >>>>> >>>>>"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>><gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's >>>>>Statement >>>>> >>>>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>>>> >>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:k >>>>>>a >>>>>> thy >>>>>> @k >>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi John, >>>>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>>>> is." >>>>>> >>>>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>>>> above-referenced white >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commer >>>>>>c >>>>>> ial >>>>>> _U >>>>>> se_-_ >>>>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>>>> consideration." >>>>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as >>>>>>framed >>>>>> in the main report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>>>> speaks only for its group. >>>>>> Tx, >>>>>> Kathy >>>>>> : >>>>>> Hi Kathy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and >>>>>>note >>>>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:k >>>>>>a >>>>>> thy >>>>>> @k >>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it >>>>>>has >>>>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the >>>>>>published >>>>>> version. >>>>>> >>>>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Kathy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>- >>>>>> --- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>>>> >>>>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the >>>>>>WG, >>>>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>>>> discussed. >>>>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>- >>>>>> --- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no >>>>>>consensus >>>>>> within the WG >>>>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>>>> the Interim Report). >>>>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which >>>>>>the >>>>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>>>> >>>>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>>>> event >>>>>> that a >>>>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly >>>>>>used >>>>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>>>> action)? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>>>> every >>>>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming >>>>>>appeals? >>>>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>>>> >>>>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>>>> allowed >>>>>> and >>>>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even >>>>>>in >>>>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>>>> >>>>>> - How can Customers be protected from >>>>>>extraterritorial >>>>>> requests >>>>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other >>>>>>countries >>>>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>>>> Article 3, >>>>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial >>>>>>policies, >>>>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in >>>>>>freedom >>>>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of >>>>>>a >>>>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) >>>>>>conduct >>>>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>>>> financial transactions directly. >>>>>> Accordingly, >>>>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and >>>>>>solely >>>>>> for this reason. >>>>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as >>>>>>others >>>>>> submitted that: >>>>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of >>>>>>determining >>>>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their >>>>>>rights >>>>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>>>> € 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? >>>>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>>>> scope and >>>>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>< >>>>>> mai >>>>>> lt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>g >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>< >>>>>> mai >>>>>> lt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>g >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Folks While I personally support Kathy’s statement, I do not have official ALAC support for the statement. The ALAC Executive will be meeting this week where both the Initial Report and statements can be discussed, but until then, I’d rather my name as a member of the ALAC not be there until there is official ALAC support for the statement. My apologies for this. Holly On 3 May 2015, at 7:52 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just to summarize where we are on this - as of the 30 April deadline, two Additional Statements were received, both of which were also posted by their respective submitters to this mailing list. One was sent in by Kiran on behalf of DomainTools; Facebook Inc.; LegitScript; MarkMonitor; and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP. Another was sent in by Kathy on behalf of herself, Stephanie Perrin, David Cake and James Gannon (members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group), and Holly Raiche (member of the At-Large Advisory Committee).
We plan to attribute each statement as noted above in Annex F of the Initial Report, which is where a placeholder for such statements had been put in the draft Initial Report. We have also, as requested by the co-vice-chairs, created a page on the WG wiki that references documents and discussions that were pertinent to the WG’s discussion of the “transactional” issue, and will include a hyperlink to this page from Section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report.
More generally, with the co-vice-chairs’ approval, we will be replicating all the WG’s preliminary conclusions and open questions in a survey (using SureveyMonkey), and offering that as an option to commenters if a survey format (with space for free form text) might be easier for them and their communities to respond to. Some WG members may know that this is a tool we have begun to use to facilitate community input for recent GNSO WGs, e.g. T e GNSO Policy & Implementation WG. Being an additional tool, the survey will not preclude, replace or displace a commenter’s ability to submit comments in the more “traditional” format, and this will be highlighted in the background and directions for submitting public comment.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 11:47 To: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Hi Jim,
Very generous. Staff - please make that change to the statement I submitted, if it is deemed that is the correct way to represent these signatories.
However, if any individual attorney or any individual at all wants to sign to any statement in their appropriate capacity as a member of the ICANN community, I strenuously object to ANY attempt to stop them from doing so.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
All,
We are happy to be listed as SGR.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> > wrote: > > It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency. > > Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their > representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm? > > J. > > > On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" > <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: > >> James/Mary/Staff, >> >> Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the >> various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear. >> >> There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as >> such >> (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through >> individual participation in the group - firm name provided as >> guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that >> appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an >> entity with a single representative, corporations who are members >> as >> a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.). >> >> Where support is given to this statement as a company, company >> names >> are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, >> individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to >> list. >> >> Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to >> clarify. >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel >> <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: >> >> Mary/Staff - >> >> These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the >> names of individuals, or companies? >> >> J. >> >> >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> >> >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@mark >> m >> oni >> to >> r.com>> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 >> To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, >> "Prosser, >> Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank >> Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, >> "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" >> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> >> Cc: PPSAI WG >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> Mary, >> >> Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from >> Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on >> behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kiran >> >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM >> To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; >> mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned >> (LegitScript, >> DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not >> individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional >> distinction.” >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kiran >> >> >> >> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bo >> u >> nce >> s@ >> icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Susan Kawaguchi >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM >> To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick >> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan >> Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064 >> >> From: <Prosser>, Susan >> <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM >> To: Frank Michlick >> <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> >> Cc: >> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental >> statement as well. >> >> -Susan >> >> >> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick >> <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: >> Kiran, >> >> I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time >> restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his >> company name to the list. >> >> If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get >> approval, >> maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) >> that support/worded the statement. >> >> So far we've got: >> >> * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor >> * Legitscript >> >> I do think that any statement included with this report should be >> attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the >> background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments >> that >> are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the >> eye of the reader. >> >> @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in >> a statement after its submission? >> >> Best regards, >> /Frank >> -- >> Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. >> >>> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >>> They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the >>> submission. >>> >>> Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but >>> companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible >>> when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated >>> statement. >>> >>> If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you >>> can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that >>> information. >>> >>> K >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Kiran >>>> >>>> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be >>>> referenced? >>>> >>>> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the >>>> submission >>>> >>>> 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> >>>> Social: http://mneylon.social >>>> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: >>>> 370845 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>>>> a >>>>> rkm >>>>> on >>>>> itor.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >>>>> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before >>>>> in >>>>> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >>>>> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>>>>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ >>>>>> m >>>>>> ark >>>>>> mo >>>>>> nitor.com>> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> >>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>> " >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's >>>>>> Statement >>>>>> >>>>>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:k >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> thy >>>>>>> @k >>>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi John, >>>>>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>>>>> is." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>>>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>>>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>>>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>>>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>>>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>>>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>>>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>>>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>>>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>>>>> above-referenced white >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commer >>>>>>> c >>>>>>> ial >>>>>>> _U >>>>>>> se_-_ >>>>>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>>>>> consideration." >>>>>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as >>>>>>> framed >>>>>>> in the main report. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>>>>> speaks only for its group. >>>>>>> Tx, >>>>>>> Kathy >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> Hi Kathy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>>>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>>>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>>>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>>>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>>>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and >>>>>>> note >>>>>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>>>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>>>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>>>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>>>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:k >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> thy >>>>>>> @k >>>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>>>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>>>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the >>>>>>> published >>>>>>> version. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Kathy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>>>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>>>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the >>>>>>> WG, >>>>>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>>>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>>>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>>>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>>>>> discussed. >>>>>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>>>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>>>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no >>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>> within the WG >>>>>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>>>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>>>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>>>>> the Interim Report). >>>>>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>>>>> event >>>>>>> that a >>>>>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>>>>> action)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>>>>> every >>>>>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>>>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>>>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming >>>>>>> appeals? >>>>>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>>>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>>>>> allowed >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>>>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - How can Customers be protected from >>>>>>> extraterritorial >>>>>>> requests >>>>>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>>>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>>>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other >>>>>>> countries >>>>>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>>>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>>>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>>>>> Article 3, >>>>>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>>>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>>>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>>>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>>>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>>>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>>>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>>>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial >>>>>>> policies, >>>>>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in >>>>>>> freedom >>>>>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>>>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>>>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>>>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>>>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>>>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) >>>>>>> conduct >>>>>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>>>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>>>>> financial transactions directly. >>>>>>> Accordingly, >>>>>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>>>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and >>>>>>> solely >>>>>>> for this reason. >>>>>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>>>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>>>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>>>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>>>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>>>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>>>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> submitted that: >>>>>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>>>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of >>>>>>> determining >>>>>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>>>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>>>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their >>>>>>> rights >>>>>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>>>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>>>>> € 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? >>>>>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>>>>> scope and >>>>>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>>>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>>>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> mai >>>>>>> lt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>> g >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> mai >>>>>>> lt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>> g >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
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
<<More generally, with the co-vice-chairs’ approval, we will be replicating all the WG’s preliminary conclusions and open questions in a survey (using SureveyMonkey), and offering that as an option to commenters if a survey format (with space for free form text) might be easier for them and their communities to respond to. Some WG members may know that this is a tool we have begun to use to facilitate community input for recent GNSO WGs, e.g. T e GNSO Policy & Implementation WG. Being an additional tool, the survey will not preclude, replace or displace a commenter’s ability to submit comments in the more “traditional” format, and this will be highlighted in the background and directions for submitting public comment.>> Hi Mary and All, This is new and I think we should think carefully about whether the SurveyMonkey serves our purposes here. At the end of the day, will it provide information that we can easily understand and use? For the comments we are seeking, context is key. We will want to understand the context in which our respondents are responding - who are they, what are they concerned about, why do certain approaches address their need? Out of context, in answer to a single question in the abstract, we may lack information for the best analysis and use at the end of the day. Full comments may be best here. Best, Kathy :
Hello everyone,
Just to summarize where we are on this - as of the 30 April deadline, two Additional Statements were received, both of which were also posted by their respective submitters to this mailing list. One was sent in by Kiran on behalf of DomainTools; Facebook Inc.; LegitScript; MarkMonitor; and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP. Another was sent in by Kathy on behalf of herself, Stephanie Perrin, David Cake and James Gannon (members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group), and Holly Raiche (member of the At-Large Advisory Committee).
We plan to attribute each statement as noted above in Annex F of the Initial Report, which is where a placeholder for such statements had been put in the draft Initial Report. We have also, as requested by the co-vice-chairs, created a page on the WG wiki that references documents and discussions that were pertinent to the WG’s discussion of the “transactional” issue, and will include a hyperlink to this page from Section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report.
More generally, with the co-vice-chairs’ approval, we will be replicating all the WG’s preliminary conclusions and open questions in a survey (using SureveyMonkey), and offering that as an option to commenters if a survey format (with space for free form text) might be easier for them and their communities to respond to. Some WG members may know that this is a tool we have begun to use to facilitate community input for recent GNSO WGs, e.g. T e GNSO Policy & Implementation WG. Being an additional tool, the survey will not preclude, replace or displace a commenter’s ability to submit comments in the more “traditional” format, and this will be highlighted in the background and directions for submitting public comment.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 11:47 To: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Hi Jim,
Very generous. Staff - please make that change to the statement I submitted, if it is deemed that is the correct way to represent these signatories.
However, if any individual attorney or any individual at all wants to sign to any statement in their appropriate capacity as a member of the ICANN community, I strenuously object to ANY attempt to stop them from doing so.
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
All,
We are happy to be listed as SGR.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not related to any constituency or SG’s membership or participation rules. We have three individual representatives on the WG who wish to lend support to this statement. However, we previously established that companies (not individuals) would be listed as signatories, which would indicate that the firm itself (SGR) should be listed once.
You’ve also explained that while these individual attorneys are associated with the same firm, they serve different clients. Also, fine but to remain consistent with the previous thread we should list those client organizations, rather than their individual representatives. If they are unable/unwilling to disclose those clients, then the indication of support should roll up to the firm.
J.
On 5/2/15, 13:08 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I don't understand this recommendation. If they are individual members of the constituency, and that is the capacity of their representation to the ICANN Community, and they each have individual SOIs, what is the basis for your recommendation? I would certainly be happy to leave the determination to staff, but it seems to me like you are trying to change the capacity of their membership to their constituency, which I would consider inappropriate.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Kiran James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:59 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Understood.
If the individual attorneys are unable/unwilling to disclose the names of the clients whose support they are lending to the statement, then I recommend we fall back to their posted SOIs. Which takes us back to a single entry for the firm itself.
Thanks—
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:54 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Most lawyers don't disclose their clientele list.
If they are individuals members of the IPC or BC, and they are listed consistently with that membership and therefore the capacity of their participation at ICANN, that is the right way to represent themselves.
Oftentimes, because of internal big firm conflicts, etc., it is inappropriate to ask a firm to be listed as a firm.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> > wrote: > > It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency. > > Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their > representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm? > > J. > > > On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" > <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: > >> James/Mary/Staff, >> >> Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the >> various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear. >> >> There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as >> such >> (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through >> individual participation in the group - firm name provided as >> guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that >> appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an >> entity with a single representative, corporations who are members >> as >> a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.). >> >> Where support is given to this statement as a company, company >> names >> are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, >> individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to >> list. >> >> Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to >> clarify. >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel >> <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: >> >> Mary/Staff - >> >> These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the >> names of individuals, or companies? >> >> J. >> >> >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> >> >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@mark >> m >> oni >> to >> r.com>> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 >> To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, >> "Prosser, >> Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank >> Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, >> "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" >> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> >> Cc: PPSAI WG >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> Mary, >> >> Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from >> Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on >> behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.” >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kiran >> >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM >> To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; >> mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned >> (LegitScript, >> DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not >> individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional >> distinction.” >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kiran >> >> >> >> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bo >> u >> nce >> s@ >> icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Susan Kawaguchi >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM >> To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick >> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan >> Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064 >> >> From: <Prosser>, Susan >> <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> >> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM >> To: Frank Michlick >> <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> >> Cc: >> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >> DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental >> statement as well. >> >> -Susan >> >> >> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick >> <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: >> Kiran, >> >> I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time >> restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his >> company name to the list. >> >> If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get >> approval, >> maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) >> that support/worded the statement. >> >> So far we've got: >> >> * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor >> * Legitscript >> >> I do think that any statement included with this report should be >> attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the >> background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments >> that >> are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the >> eye of the reader. >> >> @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in >> a statement after its submission? >> >> Best regards, >> /Frank >> -- >> Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc. >> >>> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: >>> They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the >>> submission. >>> >>> Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but >>> companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible >>> when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated >>> statement. >>> >>> If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you >>> can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that >>> information. >>> >>> K >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>>> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Kiran >>>> >>>> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be >>>> referenced? >>>> >>>> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the >>>> submission >>>> >>>> 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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> >>>> Social: http://mneylon.social >>>> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: >>>> 370845 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@m >>>>> a >>>>> rkm >>>>> on >>>>> itor.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the >>>>> statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before >>>>> in >>>>> several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is >>>>> from the proponents of the transactional distinction. >>>>> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >>>>>> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@ >>>>>> m >>>>>> ark >>>>>> mo >>>>>> nitor.com>> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman >>>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> >>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>> " >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's >>>>>> Statement >>>>>> >>>>>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:k >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> thy >>>>>>> @k >>>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi John, >>>>>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as >>>>>>> is." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's >>>>>>> statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents >>>>>>> itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>>>>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group >>>>>>> therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this >>>>>>> supplemental statement desire public comment..." >>>>>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires >>>>>>> public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, >>>>>>> non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in >>>>>>> active transactional commercial activity and provides the >>>>>>> above-referenced white >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commer >>>>>>> c >>>>>>> ial >>>>>>> _U >>>>>>> se_-_ >>>>>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>>>>>> consideration." >>>>>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as >>>>>>> framed >>>>>>> in the main report. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>>>>>> speaks only for its group. >>>>>>> Tx, >>>>>>> Kathy >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> Hi Kathy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is >>>>>>> "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or >>>>>>> seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone >>>>>>> could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also >>>>>>> senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal >>>>>>> sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and >>>>>>> note >>>>>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run >>>>>>> by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run >>>>>>> by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of >>>>>>> their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better >>>>>>> than the conjunctive in this particular case? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:k >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> thy >>>>>>> @k >>>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our >>>>>>> supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. >>>>>>> Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the >>>>>>> published >>>>>>> version. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Kathy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>>>>>> Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific >>>>>>> Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the >>>>>>> WG, >>>>>>> of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is >>>>>>> incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is >>>>>>> currently no consensus within the WG and which need >>>>>>> considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>>>>>> discussed. >>>>>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments >>>>>>> and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we >>>>>>> would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no >>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>> within the WG >>>>>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>>>>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on >>>>>>> key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of >>>>>>> the Interim Report). >>>>>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> WG has not reached consensus. These include: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the >>>>>>> event >>>>>>> that a >>>>>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider >>>>>>> action)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and >>>>>>> every >>>>>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should >>>>>>> the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for >>>>>>> such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming >>>>>>> appeals? >>>>>>> (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the >>>>>>> recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be >>>>>>> allowed >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>>>>>> reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - How can Customers be protected from >>>>>>> extraterritorial >>>>>>> requests >>>>>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use >>>>>>> of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own >>>>>>> country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other >>>>>>> countries >>>>>>> [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in >>>>>>> matters of political, military, religious and racial issues >>>>>>> because of the enormous differences of law. >>>>>>> Article 3, >>>>>>> Interpol Constitution] >>>>>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>>>>>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG >>>>>>> noted that fundraising and membership drives are often >>>>>>> performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>>>>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>>>>>> political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic >>>>>>> groups, organizations committed to change of racial >>>>>>> policies, >>>>>>> gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in >>>>>>> freedom >>>>>>> of expression. These groups and their representatives note >>>>>>> that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> donation or membership fee does not change their status from >>>>>>> ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>>>>>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>>>>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>>>>>> businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) >>>>>>> conduct >>>>>>> their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce >>>>>>> companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the >>>>>>> financial transactions directly. >>>>>>> Accordingly, >>>>>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>>>>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and >>>>>>> solely >>>>>>> for this reason. >>>>>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is >>>>>>> far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of >>>>>>> national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this >>>>>>> area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope >>>>>>> and application (e.g., Germany). >>>>>>> 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by >>>>>>> the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> submitted that: >>>>>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>>>>>> registration is not practicable for the purposes of >>>>>>> determining >>>>>>> eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly >>>>>>> discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small >>>>>>> businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their >>>>>>> rights >>>>>>> of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. >>>>>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>>>>>> € 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? >>>>>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>>>>>> scope and >>>>>>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically >>>>>>> acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address >>>>>>> legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> mai >>>>>>> lt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>> g >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> mai >>>>>>> lt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.or >>>>>>> g >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
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
If it's upsetting to have a number of signatories on the statement, I would be happy to return to the original language that was too vague for Kathy, Michele and Frank. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonito r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmon itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo nitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman > > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k > athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: > > Hi John, > Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." > > What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement > which, > although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting > input on > behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. > > Steve, Graeme and Mary, > I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore > desires > public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement > desire > public comment..." > (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public > comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous > WHOIS data > for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial > activity and provides the above-referenced white > > paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U > se_-_ > Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for > consideration." > We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in > the > main report. > > Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement > speaks > only for its group. > Tx, > Kathy > : > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers > and > seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think > the way > it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking > about > mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true > in the > literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and > note > that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by > men or > young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, > while > others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just > wonder if > the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this > particular > case? > > Thanks! > > 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman > > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k > athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: > Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, > Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the > Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word > version as > it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the > published > version. > > I include a pasted version below for easy reading. > Best, > Kathy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ------- > Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, > Members of > the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > > We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on > which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI > Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a > number > of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and > which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply > discussed. > For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and > discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like > to see > Section 1.3.3 written. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ------------------------------------------- > 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus > within > the WG > 1.3.3.1 REVEAL > The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key > details > of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). > There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG > has > not reached consensus. These include: > > - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event > that a > Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used > (current > recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? > > - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every > rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the > WG seek > to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to > avoid > unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for > Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG > has > agreed to by consensus.) > > - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed > and > encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a > reasonable > defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a > copyright or trademark infringement allegation? > > - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial > requests > from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of > their > domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps > purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol > refuses > to act across national lines in matters of political, military, > religious > and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. > Article 3, > Interpol Constitution] > Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. > > 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW > 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[1][1], 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. [1] > Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership > drives are > often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking > privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority > political > groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, > organizations > committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, > and > publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and > their > representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere > collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their > status > from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² > status is limited to only a few countries. > Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based > businesses > (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial > transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as > PayPal, and > thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. > Accordingly, > many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the > proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for > this > reason. > Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far > beyond > the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of > which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined > and > properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). > 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 > This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG > and > has not reached consensus as others submitted that: > "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain > registration is > not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for > privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against > vulnerable > groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish > to > exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the > Internet. > Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: > € 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? > € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's > scope and > mandate and the proper province of national law? > > > ________________________________ > > [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged > that P/P > services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both > commercial and non-commercial. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Good evening Kiran, Why would you think it is upsetting. I didn't see anyone mention that - I find it confusing though as may others that we have company names being used (nice and obvious) and then 3 lawyers all from the same Law practice wishing to be named rather than the company they represent. For example, we had 2 individuals if memory serves on this WG from Legitscript - why not mention the 2 names rather than the company. I for one do not find it upsetting, amusing maybe, not upsetting. Kind regards, Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Sent: Saturday, 2 May, 2015 6:55:57 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement If it's upsetting to have a number of signatories on the statement, I would be happy to return to the original language that was too vague for Kathy, Michele and Frank. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonito r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmon itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo nitor.com>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman > > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k > athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: > > Hi John, > Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." > > What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement > which, > although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting > input on > behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. > > Steve, Graeme and Mary, > I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore > desires > public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement > desire > public comment..." > (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public > comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous > WHOIS data > for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial > activity and provides the above-referenced white > > paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U > se_-_ > Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for > consideration." > We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in > the > main report. > > Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement > speaks > only for its group. > Tx, > Kathy > : > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers > and > seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think > the way > it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking > about > mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true > in the > literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and > note > that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by > men or > young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, > while > others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just > wonder if > the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this > particular > case? > > Thanks! > > 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman > > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k > athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: > Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, > Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the > Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word > version as > it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the > published > version. > > I include a pasted version below for easy reading. > Best, > Kathy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ------- > Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, > Members of > the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > > We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on > which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI > Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a > number > of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and > which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply > discussed. > For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and > discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like > to see > Section 1.3.3 written. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ------------------------------------------- > 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus > within > the WG > 1.3.3.1 REVEAL > The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key > details > of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). > There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG > has > not reached consensus. These include: > > - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event > that a > Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used > (current > recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? > > - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every > rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the > WG seek > to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to > avoid > unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for > Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG > has > agreed to by consensus.) > > - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed > and > encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a > reasonable > defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a > copyright or trademark infringement allegation? > > - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial > requests > from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of > their > domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps > purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol > refuses > to act across national lines in matters of political, military, > religious > and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. > Article 3, > Interpol Constitution] > Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. > > 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW > 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[1][1], 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. [1] > Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership > drives are > often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking > privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority > political > groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, > organizations > committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, > and > publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and > their > representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere > collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their > status > from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² > status is limited to only a few countries. > Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based > businesses > (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial > transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as > PayPal, and > thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. > Accordingly, > many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the > proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for > this > reason. > Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far > beyond > the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of > which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined > and > properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). > 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 > This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG > and > has not reached consensus as others submitted that: > "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain > registration is > not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for > privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against > vulnerable > groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish > to > exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the > Internet. > Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: > € 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? > € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's > scope and > mandate and the proper province of national law? > > > ________________________________ > > [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged > that P/P > services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both > commercial and non-commercial. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt > o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
Good evening to you Chris, I can't speak for LegitScript, but I can say that MarkMonitor, for example, is a category 2 member of the IPC, which means we are a member as a company, regardless of how many representatives are present on WGs or what not. We are a single voice. Jim, Val and David are Category 1 members which is individual membership and/or individual firm membership, so they are free to represent themselves as individuals, or as one firm, according to their preference. K Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Chris Pelling <chris@netearthone.com> wrote:
Good evening Kiran,
Why would you think it is upsetting. I didn't see anyone mention that - I find it confusing though as may others that we have company names being used (nice and obvious) and then 3 lawyers all from the same Law practice wishing to be named rather than the company they represent. For example, we had 2 individuals if memory serves on this WG from Legitscript - why not mention the 2 names rather than the company.
I for one do not find it upsetting, amusing maybe, not upsetting.
Kind regards, Chris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Sent: Saturday, 2 May, 2015 6:55:57 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
If it's upsetting to have a number of signatories on the statement, I would be happy to return to the original language that was too vague for Kathy, Michele and Frank.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonito r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmon itor.com>> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong > <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > > We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. > > 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kiran Malancharuvil > <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo > nitor.com>> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 > To: Kathy Kleiman > <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> > Cc: > "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" > <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement > >> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> >> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k >> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." >> >> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement >> which, >> although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting >> input on >> behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >> >> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore >> desires >> public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement >> desire >> public comment..." >> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public >> comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous >> WHOIS data >> for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial >> activity and provides the above-referenced white >> >> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U >> se_-_ >> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >> consideration." >> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in >> the >> main report. >> >> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >> speaks >> only for its group. >> Tx, >> Kathy >> : >> Hi Kathy, >> >> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers >> and >> seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think >> the way >> it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking >> about >> mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true >> in the >> literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and >> note >> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by >> men or >> young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, >> while >> others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just >> wonder if >> the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this >> particular >> case? >> >> Thanks! >> >> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> >> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@k >> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, >> Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the >> Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word >> version as >> it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the >> published >> version. >> >> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----- >> ------- >> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >> Members of >> the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >> >> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on >> which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI >> Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a >> number >> of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and >> which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >> discussed. >> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and >> discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like >> to see >> Section 1.3.3 written. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----- >> ------------------------------------------- >> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >> within >> the WG >> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key >> details >> of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). >> There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG >> has >> not reached consensus. These include: >> >> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event >> that a >> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >> (current >> recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? >> >> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every >> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the >> WG seek >> to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to >> avoid >> unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for >> Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG >> has >> agreed to by consensus.) >> >> - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed >> and >> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >> reasonable >> defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a >> copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >> >> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >> requests >> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of >> their >> domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps >> purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol >> refuses >> to act across national lines in matters of political, military, >> religious >> and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. >> Article 3, >> Interpol Constitution] >> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >> >> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >> 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[1][1], 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. [1] >> Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership >> drives are >> often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >> political >> groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, >> organizations >> committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, >> and >> publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and >> their >> representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere >> collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their >> status >> from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >> status is limited to only a few countries. >> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >> businesses >> (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial >> transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as >> PayPal, and >> thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. >> Accordingly, >> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for >> this >> reason. >> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far >> beyond >> the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of >> which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined >> and >> properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). >> 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 >> This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG >> and >> has not reached consensus as others submitted that: >> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >> registration is >> not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for >> privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against >> vulnerable >> groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish >> to >> exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the >> Internet. >> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >> € 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? >> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >> scope and >> mandate and the proper province of national law? >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged >> that P/P >> services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both >> commercial and non-commercial. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt >> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailt >> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
Thanks. I'm not completely familiar with the different categories within various constituencies, but any LegitScript employees (including me) participating in this working group are doing so on behalf of LegitScript, not on their own behalf as private individuals. I think it's most accurate simply to note the support for the statement in question as coming from LegitScript. 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 Sat, May 2, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Good evening to you Chris,
I can't speak for LegitScript, but I can say that MarkMonitor, for example, is a category 2 member of the IPC, which means we are a member as a company, regardless of how many representatives are present on WGs or what not. We are a single voice. Jim, Val and David are Category 1 members which is individual membership and/or individual firm membership, so they are free to represent themselves as individuals, or as one firm, according to their preference.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Chris Pelling <chris@netearthone.com> wrote:
Good evening Kiran,
Why would you think it is upsetting. I didn't see anyone mention that - I find it confusing though as may others that we have company names being used (nice and obvious) and then 3 lawyers all from the same Law practice wishing to be named rather than the company they represent. For example, we had 2 individuals if memory serves on this WG from Legitscript - why not mention the 2 names rather than the company.
I for one do not find it upsetting, amusing maybe, not upsetting.
Kind regards, Chris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Sent: Saturday, 2 May, 2015 6:55:57 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
If it's upsetting to have a number of signatories on the statement, I would be happy to return to the original language that was too vague for Kathy, Michele and Frank.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
J.
On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
James/Mary/Staff,
Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance) and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a single representative, corporations who are members as a business, membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Mary/Staff -
These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names of individuals, or companies?
J.
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto: Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonito r.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>>, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Mary,
Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith, Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript, DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional distinction.”
Thanks,
Kiran
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: <Prosser>, Susan <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM To: Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto: frank@domaincocoon.com>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement as well.
-Susan
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick <frank@domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank@domaincocoon.com>> wrote: Kiran,
I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his company name to the list.
If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval, maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that support/worded the statement.
So far we've got:
* Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor * Legitscript
I do think that any statement included with this report should be attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of the reader.
@Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a statement after its submission?
Best regards, /Frank -- Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" > <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto: Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmon > itor.com>> wrote: > > Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement > as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes > and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of > the transactional distinction. > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Internet Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong >> <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >> >> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks. >> >> 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kiran Malancharuvil >> <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto: Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmo >> nitor.com>> >> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 >> To: Kathy Kleiman >> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >> Cc: >> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement >> >>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group." >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Internet Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto: kathy@k >>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi John, >>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is." >>> >>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement >>> which, >>> although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting >>> input on >>> behalf of the entire PPSAI WG. >>> >>> Steve, Graeme and Mary, >>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore >>> desires >>> public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement >>> desire >>> public comment..." >>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public >>> comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous >>> WHOIS data >>> for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial >>> activity and provides the above-referenced white >>> >>> paper< https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U >>> se_-_ >>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for >>> consideration." >>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in >>> the >>> main report. >>> >>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement >>> speaks >>> only for its group. >>> Tx, >>> Kathy >>> : >>> Hi Kathy, >>> >>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers >>> and >>> seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think >>> the way >>> it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking >>> about >>> mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true >>> in the >>> literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and >>> note >>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by >>> men or >>> young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, >>> while >>> others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just >>> wonder if >>> the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this >>> particular >>> case? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> 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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> >>> <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto: kathy@k >>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> wrote: >>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, >>> Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the >>> Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word >>> version as >>> it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the >>> published >>> version. >>> >>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading. >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> >>>
>>> ----- >>> ------- >>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, >>> Members of >>> the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >>> >>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on >>> which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI >>> Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a >>> number >>> of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and >>> which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply >>> discussed. >>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and >>> discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like >>> to see >>> Section 1.3.3 written. >>> >>>
>>> ----- >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus >>> within >>> the WG >>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL >>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key >>> details >>> of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). >>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG >>> has >>> not reached consensus. These include: >>> >>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event >>> that a >>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used >>> (current >>> recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)? >>> >>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every >>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the >>> WG seek >>> to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to >>> avoid >>> unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for >>> Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG >>> has >>> agreed to by consensus.) >>> >>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed >>> and >>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a >>> reasonable >>> defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a >>> copyright or trademark infringement allegation? >>> >>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial >>> requests >>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of >>> their >>> domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps >>> purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol >>> refuses >>> to act across national lines in matters of political, military, >>> religious >>> and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. >>> Article 3, >>> Interpol Constitution] >>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues. >>> >>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW >>> 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[1][1], 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. [1] >>> Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership >>> drives are >>> often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking >>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority >>> political >>> groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, >>> organizations >>> committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, >>> and >>> publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and >>> their >>> representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere >>> collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their >>> status >>> from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² >>> status is limited to only a few countries. >>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based >>> businesses >>> (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial >>> transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as >>> PayPal, and >>> thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. >>> Accordingly, >>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the >>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for >>> this >>> reason. >>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far >>> beyond >>> the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of >>> which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined >>> and >>> properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). >>> 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 >>> This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG >>> and >>> has not reached consensus as others submitted that: >>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain >>> registration is >>> not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for >>> privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against >>> vulnerable >>> groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish >>> to >>> exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the >>> Internet. >>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: >>> € 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? >>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's >>> scope and >>> mandate and the proper province of national law? >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged >>> that P/P >>> services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both >>> commercial and non-commercial. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>> >>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailt >>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailt >>> o:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
LegitScript is a proponent. We are perfectly fine being referenced. JCH
On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Kiran
So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be referenced?
In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
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://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of the transactional distinction.
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement which, although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting input on behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
Steve, Graeme and Mary, I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement desire public comment..." (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous WHOIS data for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial activity and provides the above-referenced white paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_Use_-_ Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for consideration." We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in the main report.
Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement speaks only for its group. Tx, Kathy : Hi Kathy,
Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers and seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think the way it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking about mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true in the literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and note that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by men or young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers, while others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just wonder if the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this particular case?
Thanks!
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 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All, Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word version as it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the published version.
I include a pasted version below for easy reading. Best, Kathy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin, Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a number of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply discussed. For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like to see Section 1.3.3 written. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG 1.3.3.1 REVEAL The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key details of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report). There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG has not reached consensus. These include:
- What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event that a Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used (current recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
- Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the WG seek to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG has agreed to by consensus.)
- What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed and encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a reasonable defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
- How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial requests from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of their domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol refuses to act across national lines in matters of political, military, religious and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law. Article 3, Interpol Constitution] Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW 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[1][1], 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. [1] Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership drives are often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority political groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups, organizations committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups, and publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and their representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their status from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit² status is limited to only a few countries. Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based businesses (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as PayPal, and thus are not processing the financial transactions directly. Accordingly, many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for this reason. Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far beyond the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined and properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany). 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 This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG and has not reached consensus as others submitted that: "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain registration is not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the Internet. Input requested on the full issues, including questions below: € 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? € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's scope and mandate and the proper province of national law?
________________________________
[1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged that P/P services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both commercial and non-commercial.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (14)
-
Bikoff, James -
Chris Pelling -
Frank Michlick -
Holly Raiche -
James M. Bladel -
John Horton -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Luc SEUFER -
Mary Wong -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Prosser, Susan -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi