Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn¹t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil¹s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph
The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added)
-- if there is no consensus on the definitions of ³online financial transactions for commercial purposes² or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an ³Illustrative framework mechanism² possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G¹s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no ³special² restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don¹t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don¹t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG¹s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG¹s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG¹s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg <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
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the "minority" view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce). While I'm weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler. From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Doesn't that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view. From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process. Kathy On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil's words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial. Holly On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph- The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of "online financial transactions for commercial purposes" or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an "Illustrative framework mechanism" possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G's assessment. If we agree that there should be no "special" restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don't understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don't feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG's Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG's deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG's Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<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
Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
*Kiran Malancharuvil*
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
*To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
*From:* Victoria Sheckler *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase* of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. *(emphasis added)
*-- *if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:* James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To: *Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To: *"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- *Terri Stumme* *Intelligence Analyst*
I’m sure we will discuss this at length tomorrow, but I have to say I will fight against a minority view becoming consensus policy via an implementation stage backdoor, which is how I (And it seems others) read this as currently written. I will happily come to agreement on language that reflects that there was a strongly held minority view on this from important stakeholders, but the text as written goes well beyond that recognition. Perhaps we are looking at the text in different ways and Steve and Graeme will clarify the intent of the language as drafted tomorrow. In no way would I want to quash recognition that there is a minority viewpoint on this critical issue, but we need to ensure we don’t inadvertently operationalise that viewpoint in the face of majority agreement not to do so. Speak tomorrow, -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Terri Stumme Date: Monday 21 September 2015 18:23 To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce). While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318<tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138<tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler. From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view. From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process. Kathy On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial. Holly On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<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 -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
I have been following this discussion without participating because I wasn't sure on the subject of this discussion. This been said I would like to note that in my case, and I think that a few others shared my position, I opposed excluding online financial transactions from using p/p services, not for what they might be doing but because I opposed discriminating any user due to their activities, as long as they are legal. I think that there should not be any restriction for using p/p services for any legal activity. Best regards, [cid:289481918@21092015-322F]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de James Gannon Enviado el: Lunes, 21 de Septiembre de 2015 15:06 Para: Terri Stumme; Kiran Malancharuvil CC: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I'm sure we will discuss this at length tomorrow, but I have to say I will fight against a minority view becoming consensus policy via an implementation stage backdoor, which is how I (And it seems others) read this as currently written. I will happily come to agreement on language that reflects that there was a strongly held minority view on this from important stakeholders, but the text as written goes well beyond that recognition. Perhaps we are looking at the text in different ways and Steve and Graeme will clarify the intent of the language as drafted tomorrow. In no way would I want to quash recognition that there is a minority viewpoint on this critical issue, but we need to ensure we don't inadvertently operationalise that viewpoint in the face of majority agreement not to do so. Speak tomorrow, -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Terri Stumme Date: Monday 21 September 2015 18:23 To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the "minority" view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce). While I'm weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318<tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138<tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler. From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Doesn't that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view. From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process. Kathy On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil's words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial. Holly On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph- The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of "online financial transactions for commercial purposes" or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an "Illustrative framework mechanism" possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G's assessment. If we agree that there should be no "special" restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don't understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don't feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG's Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG's deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG's Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<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 -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
And the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner wrote asking us not to restrict access to proxy/privacy registrations. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is "where is there consensus?" and there is no consensus to move forward on any type of differentiation of proxy/privacy registrations - now or in the future. On 9/21/2015 1:23 PM, Terri Stumme wrote:
Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
*Kiran Malancharuvil*
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 <tel:415.222.8318> (t)
415.419.9138 <tel:415.419.9138> (m)
www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com/>
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
*To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
*From:*Victoria Sheckler *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase*of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources.*(emphasis added)
**
*--*if there is no consensus on**the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/cell*
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:*Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:*James Gannon; Mary Wong;gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press- get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090>
Social:http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff:http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To:*Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To:*"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <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
-- /Terri Stumme/ /Intelligence Analyst/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 James -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Monday 21 September 2015 19:06 To: Terri Stumme, Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I’m sure we will discuss this at length tomorrow, but I have to say I will fight against a minority view becoming consensus policy via an implementation stage backdoor, which is how I (And it seems others) read this as currently written. I will happily come to agreement on language that reflects that there was a strongly held minority view on this from important stakeholders, but the text as written goes well beyond that recognition. Perhaps we are looking at the text in different ways and Steve and Graeme will clarify the intent of the language as drafted tomorrow. In no way would I want to quash recognition that there is a minority viewpoint on this critical issue, but we need to ensure we don’t inadvertently operationalise that viewpoint in the face of majority agreement not to do so. Speak tomorrow, -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Terri Stumme Date: Monday 21 September 2015 18:23 To: Kiran Malancharuvil Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce). While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318<tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138<tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler. From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view. From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process. Kathy On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial. Holly On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<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 -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
Happy to see Kiran recognized the reference, even why I would be suspicious of anyone else defining my commercial activity. Yessir, the language was deliberately chosen. And for effect. Unhappily, the response tends to the regular. It is always the victim that is encouraged to wait and be of good cheer. After the hurt. It should therefore not surprise that I would reject that argument. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com
wrote:
Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
*Kiran Malancharuvil*
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
*To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
*From:* Victoria Sheckler *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase* of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. *(emphasis added)
*-- *if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:* James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To: *Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To: *"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- *Terri Stumme* *Intelligence Analyst*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
This is the attitude that truly undermines the PDP process. Kiran From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:35 PM To: Terri Stumme Cc: Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Happy to see Kiran recognized the reference, even why I would be suspicious of anyone else defining my commercial activity. Yessir, the language was deliberately chosen. And for effect. Unhappily, the response tends to the regular. It is always the victim that is encouraged to wait and be of good cheer. After the hurt. It should therefore not surprise that I would reject that argument. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com<mailto:terri.stumme@legitscript.com>> wrote: Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote: Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce). While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton. Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318<tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138<tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler. From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view. From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report +1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process. Kathy On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial. Holly On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: +1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<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 -- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst _______________________________________________ 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
Actually sir, what undermines the PDP process is an attempt to back door an idea that was explicitly rejected. Because absent this attempt I would have kept my peace. And my use of metaphoric language - which you clearly don't like! - would not have been provoked. ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
This is the attitude that truly undermines the PDP process.
Kiran
*From:* Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 2:35 PM *To:* Terri Stumme *Cc:* Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Happy to see Kiran recognized the reference, even why I would be suspicious of anyone else defining my commercial activity.
Yessir, the language was deliberately chosen. And for effect.
Unhappily, the response tends to the regular. It is always the victim that is encouraged to wait and be of good cheer. After the hurt.
It should therefore not surprise that I would reject that argument.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Terri Stumme < terri.stumme@legitscript.com> wrote:
Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
*Kiran Malancharuvil*
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
*To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
*From:* Victoria Sheckler *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase* of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. *(emphasis added)
*-- *if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:* James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To: *Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To: *"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
*Terri Stumme*
*Intelligence Analyst*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I should point out that many of us represent lots of other people as well. For example, ISOC Chapter members represent the close to 200 chapters - each with large memberships. Or personally, I also represent a peak Australian telecommunications consumer group with over 100 members - with those members as organisations representing, again, so many more people. Or consider the vast number of registrars represented by just a few working group members. We all represent different stakeholders. So please, let’s stop that discussion. At issue is the fact that there is no consensus even on definitions - we can’t even agree on what it is we do/don’t want barred. Taking Kathy’s point (and Phil and Hames and…) there is no consensus on the most basic starting point on this issue. I must be an apology for this meeting, but am comforted by the many WG members who share my concern with the suggestion that the issue of restricting use of p/p providers by (undefined - commercial/financial ???) should be further discussed Holly On 22 Sep 2015, at 4:42 am, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
And the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner wrote asking us not to restrict access to proxy/privacy registrations. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is "where is there consensus?" and there is no consensus to move forward on any type of differentiation of proxy/privacy registrations - now or in the future.
On 9/21/2015 1:23 PM, Terri Stumme wrote:
Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
From: Victoria Sheckler Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added)
-- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Terri Stumme Intelligence Analyst
_______________________________________________ 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
I would also like to remind the working group that the majority view includes registrars, registries and user groups representing millions of domain owners and internet users. Minorities are free to publish a minority statement to the report, I though that was what this instrument was there for. Volker Am 21.09.2015 um 19:06 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
*Kiran Malancharuvil*
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com/>
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
*From:*Victoria Sheckler *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase*of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources.*(emphasis added)
**
*--*if there is no consensus on**the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell*
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:*Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:*James Gannon; Mary Wong;gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press- get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social:http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff:http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To:*Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To:*"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
+1 Am 21.09.2015 um 23:52 schrieb Carlton Samuels:
Actually sir, what undermines the PDP process is an attempt to back door an idea that was explicitly rejected.
Because absent this attempt I would have kept my peace. And my use of metaphoric language - which you clearly don't like! - would not have been provoked.
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
This is the attitude that truly undermines the PDP process.
Kiran
*From:*Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 2:35 PM *To:* Terri Stumme *Cc:* Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Happy to see Kiran recognized the reference, even why I would be suspicious of anyone else defining my commercial activity.
Yessir, the language was deliberately chosen. And for effect.
Unhappily, the response tends to the regular. It is always the victim that is encouraged to wait and be of good cheer. After the hurt.
It should therefore not surprise that I would reject that argument.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:876-818-1799> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com <mailto:terri.stumme@legitscript.com>> wrote:
Additionally, as noted in the attached "Issue Chart for the GNSO RAA Remaining Issues PDP on Privacy/Proxy Services", Item 6.2, this issue was originally brought forth by law enforcement.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> wrote:
Agree with Vicky. I would also remind the working group that the “minority” view calling for more work includes membership organizations representing thousands of voices including INTA, IACC, IPC, BC, US Chamber of Commerce).
While I’m weighing in I would also reject any association of these groups with discriminatory viewpoints such as that people of color are 2/3rds of a human being (from the notorious and despicable Dred Scott decision). Slightly hyperbolic Carlton.
Kiran
*Kiran Malancharuvil*
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 <tel:415.222.8318> (t)
415.419.9138 <tel:415.419.9138> (m)
www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com/>
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 10:01 AM
*To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Forwarding on behalf of Vicky Sheckler.
*From:*Victoria Sheckler *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 9:22 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Doesn’t that approach unfairly ignore the comments that requested the minority position? It seems to me that the last paragraph is consistent with the majority view but permits time to assess the concerns raised by the minority view.
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:58 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process.
Kathy
On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph—
The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase* of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. *(emphasis added)
**
*-- *if there is no consensus on**the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/cell*
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:* James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090>
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To: *Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To: *"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject: *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <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
--
/Terri Stumme/
/Intelligence Analyst/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (10)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Holly Raiche -
James Gannon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Terri Stumme -
Volker Greimann