Don and all, As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs. This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group. In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE). And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions. This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses. I hope these ideas are helpful. Best, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week: "John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?" Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications. Don _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be. So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps. And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term) Holly On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all
I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Everyone - including Stephanie I think we are at the stage of asking questions - not answering them. So the question we ask has to be whether there should be some group (however defined) that should not be able to use the service - or have special rules around use - or not. And the next question is to try to draw lines around that group. Holly On 20/01/2014, at 9:44 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all
I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Stephanie, It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical. The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names. In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process. --bob On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all, As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs. This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group. In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE). And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions. This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses. I hope these ideas are helpful. Best, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week: “John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?" Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications. Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
"John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Bob, Stephanie is not talking about 'exceptions' but rather a fundamental difficulty with defining what is commercial, and that is simply within her jurisdiction. Outside of Canada or common law jurisdictions, it gets even harder. For instance, on my work trips to various ICT projects in developing countries, the distinctions between commercial and noncommercial that seem plain to some just don't hold up; many ICT initiatives are part-commercial and part nonprofit because it's the only way they can survive. Even, sometimes, the human rights activists. As Stephanie points out there is a dearth of actual arguments in favour of the blanket assumption against 'commercial' enterprises accessing p/p. I, also, would like to hear the rationale for barring commercial entities from p/p, particularly given efforts to define 'commercial' as broadly as possible, even, in some quarters, to personal blogs that have tip jars or include advertising. So far, nothing I've seen has convinced me that the bid to exclude so-called commercial websites is a first principles objection so much as an attempt to exclude the biggest number of domain names possible. I also fail to see how ICANN can police this without getting into content, which is explicitly and for very good reason beyond our mandate. I would like to see on this mailing list and our phone calls some evidence-based and logically sound arguments for what is currently being claimed as an unproblematic assumption. I would also like to see a good faith willingness to engage with the difficulty of actually implementing such a distinction, if it were to be made. Maria On 20 January 2014 09:53, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Thanks Maria, you have restated my point far more eloquently, and with evidence! This whole discussion causes me to suggest again, that using the working group process to do risk assessment and quasi-regulatory impact assessment (which is basically what we are doing as we debate these questions) seems to beg a better framework. We need to understand the potential impacts of what we do...including asking the questions. We don't want to be asking leading questions, we want to be seeking evidence. Stephanie On 2014-01-20, at 6:34 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
Bob,
Stephanie is not talking about 'exceptions' but rather a fundamental difficulty with defining what is commercial, and that is simply within her jurisdiction. Outside of Canada or common law jurisdictions, it gets even harder. For instance, on my work trips to various ICT projects in developing countries, the distinctions between commercial and noncommercial that seem plain to some just don't hold up; many ICT initiatives are part-commercial and part nonprofit because it's the only way they can survive. Even, sometimes, the human rights activists.
As Stephanie points out there is a dearth of actual arguments in favour of the blanket assumption against 'commercial' enterprises accessing p/p. I, also, would like to hear the rationale for barring commercial entities from p/p, particularly given efforts to define 'commercial' as broadly as possible, even, in some quarters, to personal blogs that have tip jars or include advertising. So far, nothing I've seen has convinced me that the bid to exclude so-called commercial websites is a first principles objection so much as an attempt to exclude the biggest number of domain names possible.
I also fail to see how ICANN can police this without getting into content, which is explicitly and for very good reason beyond our mandate.
I would like to see on this mailing list and our phone calls some evidence-based and logically sound arguments for what is currently being claimed as an unproblematic assumption. I would also like to see a good faith willingness to engage with the difficulty of actually implementing such a distinction, if it were to be made.
Maria
On 20 January 2014 09:53, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Volker, I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position. However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem. The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups). --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all, As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs. This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group. In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE). And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions. This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses. I hope these ideas are helpful. Best, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week: “John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?" Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications. Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I think that Holly's point is a valid one: we're at the point of asking questions and soliciting feedback, if I understand it correctly. While there may be varying viewpoints in this group regarding the utility, wisdom and ease of distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial entities using P/P services, it seems to me that some of the input we may receive in response to those questions could assist this group in better understanding why such a distinction is either a) good policy and practical or b) bad policy and unworkable. As a matter of process, however, I would agree that it is appropriate and useful to solicit that feedback from external entities at this juncture. John Horton President, LegitScript *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Bob Bruen <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using
p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Tim, The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations? And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service? Thanks‹ J. On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi James, ===================================================================== As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list. ================================================================== Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie. If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue. --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to exclude a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making an abuse report. Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long as there are public data register like phone books or public whois as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data. Volker
Hi James, ===================================================================== As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list. ==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks<
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- 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.
This speaks to my point about regulatory impact assessment. We need to figure out where we are driving the criminal behaviour. I would suggest, it will go to social engineering and identity theft, facilitated by forcing law-abiding organizations and individuals into fuller disclosure of factual data about themselves. I can dig up examples where regulation and security measures have had this effect, speaking to Michele's point about numbers. Perhaps this discussion is premature, but I don't actually think so. Survey construction is important. Stephanie On 2014-01-20, at 11:40 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to exclude a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making an abuse report.
Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long as there are public data register like phone books or public whois as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data.
Volker
Hi James, ===================================================================== As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list. ==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote: > > I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from > using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the > sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a > blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to > legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. > In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of > clients it accepts. > Volker > Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen: > > Hi Stephanie, > > It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, > create a definition of "comercial entities" and > then deal with those which appear to problematical. > > The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate > bussiness, but their sites can be identified as > spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a > business. I am sure there are other methods to deal > with problem domain names. > > In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process. > > --bob > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if > there is a resounding > response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from > using P/P services", then > how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service > providers determine who is a > commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which > have declined to regulate > the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I > don't like asking > questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. > Do the fraudsters we > are worried about actually apply for business numbers and > articles of > incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? > I operate in a > jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely > difficult to make. THe > determination would depend on the precise use being made > of the domain > name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, > and which can hardly be > done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's > remit. I am honestly > not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a > good answer to this > problem. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: > > Jin and all > I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important > task here is > agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So > we need to get > back to framing the questions - not answering them, > however tempting that > may be. > > So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be > barred is still > a useful question to ask. The next question would be > whether there are > possible distinctions that should be drawn between an > entity that can use > the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the > line drawn. I agree > with the discussion on how difficult that will be because > many entities > that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds > for wanting the > protection of such a service (human rights organisations > or women's refuges > come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are > seeking from > others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge > answers. Let's only > frame the questions that will help us come to some > sensible answers. > Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps. > > And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day > ahead on > Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't > help. So Ill read > the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for > those who do not use > the term) > > Holly > > On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote: > > Don and all, > > As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group > teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we > reached a > consensus on the groups of questions before sending them > out to > SO/ACs and SG/Cs. > > This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name > of each > group; and second, streamlining the questions in each > group. > > In the first step, we could consider alternative headings > (perhaps > REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE). > > And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or > vague > questions. > > This crystallization would make the questions more > approachable, and > encourage better responses. > > I hope these ideas are helpful. > > Best, > > Jim > > James L. Bikoff > Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP > 1101 30th Street, NW > Suite 120 > Washington, DC 20007 > Tel: 202-944-3303 > Fax: 202-944-3306 > jbikoff@sgbdc.com > > > > From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> > Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST > To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat > question > Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week: > > ³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that > others > might be extracted? And where do we include/modify > questions > to address Stephanie's issue?" > > Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which > may be > instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed > organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters > has > been that his document is a significant improvement over > where > we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. > However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to > suggest > modifications. > > Don > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Volker, Not sure, what to say here, because I know you know better. Spam email makes up about 75% to 85% of all email traffic. That is a lot more than a few bad apples. It is also true that abuse reports can be delivered at a 40,000 to 50,000 per day level, if ICANN and the Registrars would take them. Verification would make a huge difference and this has been shown on several occasions by KnujOn and others. Currently, many registrations have total nonsense in the fields and do not even meet format requirements (such as email format). These are almost always done by criminals (spammers, etc). The same guys who want p/p. They register domains in bulk, so looking each one up to get a real set of public data would put a burden on them. --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to exclude a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making an abuse report.
Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long as there are public data register like phone books or public whois as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data.
Volker
Hi James, ===================================================================== As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list. ==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi Bob,
Not sure, what to say here, because I know you know better. Spam email makes up about 75% to 85% of all email traffic. That is a lot more than a few bad apples.
I am sure you agree with me, that while the volume of spam may be high, this is usually sent by a small percentage of registrants. Actually, spammers do not even need a domain, they need a botnet. So when looking at all registrants, the number of "bad registrants" is more likely to be in the thousands of a percent.
It is also true that abuse reports can be delivered at a 40,000 to 50,000 per day level, if ICANN and the Registrars would take them.
If you want to clog up abuse channels with duplicate reports and therefore extend reaction times to nearly infinite, then do that. I am sure the real criminals will love that. That said, we take and review _all_ complaints we get.
Verification would make a huge difference and this has been shown on several occasions by KnujOn and others. Currently, many registrations have total nonsense in the fields and do not even meet format requirements (such as email format). These are almost always done by criminals (spammers, etc). The same guys who want p/p. Convince me then (but off-list, since verification is not currently what we are looking at).
However, please also explain then how verification will not simply lead to an increase of identity theft and harassment of innocents who just happen to have their private details abused by a criminal in order to have verifyable data.
They register domains in bulk, so looking each one up to get a real set of public data would put a burden on them.
Not if they automate it. There are enough online databases and if they are sophisticated enough to create bbotnets and online storefronts, they will most likely also be able to parse a database in their bulk registration engines... Verification to me is a red herring. Volker
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to exclude a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making an abuse report.
Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long as there are public data register like phone books or public whois as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data.
Volker
Hi James, ===================================================================== As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list. ==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- 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.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Volker, inline, bob
Hi Bob,
Not sure, what to say here, because I know you know better. Spam email makes up about 75% to 85% of all email traffic. That is a lot more than a few bad apples.
I am sure you agree with me, that while the volume of spam may be high, this is usually sent by a small percentage of registrants. Actually, spammers do not even need a domain, they need a botnet.
Actually I do not agree with you. There may be a small number of bad actors, compared to all registrants, but they register millions of domain names (yes, I can verify that). Yes, they use botnets for sending, but they need their own sites for landing/transaction sites, which are they ones to be shutdown.
So when looking at all registrants, the number of "bad registrants" is more likely to be in the thousands of a percent.
Not if you count the number of domain names.
It is also true that abuse reports can be delivered at a 40,000 to 50,000 per day level, if ICANN and the Registrars would take them.
If you want to clog up abuse channels with duplicate reports and therefore extend reaction times to nearly infinite, then do that. I am sure the real criminals will love that.
You know that, for example. KnujOn eliminates all the duplicates. That 40k-50k are real, non-duplicated sites. If your abuse channels are unable to handle that volume, perhaps you could consider not offering bulk, automated registrations. I am also sure, that there are places that could you help with your problem.
That said, we take and review _all_ complaints we get.
Verification would make a huge difference and this has been shown on several occasions by KnujOn and others. Currently, many registrations have total nonsense in the fields and do not even meet format requirements (such as email format). These are almost always done by criminals (spammers, etc). The same guys who want p/p. Convince me then (but off-list, since verification is not currently what we are looking at).
However, please also explain then how verification will not simply lead to an increase of identity theft and harassment of innocents who just happen to have their private details abused by a criminal in order to have verifyable data.
This is merely speculation on your part. The current situation is that they put nonsense in the registration forms.
They register domains in bulk, so looking each one up to get a real set of public data would put a burden on them.
Not if they automate it. There are enough online databases and if they are sophisticated enough to create bbotnets and online storefronts, they will most likely also be able to parse a database in their bulk registration engines...
Verification to me is a red herring.
Volker
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to exclude a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making an abuse report.
Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long as there are public data register like phone books or public whois as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data.
Volker
Hi James, ===================================================================== As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will stop answering these emails, unless something happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion with me, please contact me off list. ==================================================================
Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not be an issue.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
And is it your contention that criminals provide valid identification/contact details to the P/P service?
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi Bob,
You know that, for example. KnujOn eliminates all the duplicates. That 40k-50k are real, non-duplicated sites. If your abuse channels are unable to handle that volume, perhaps you could consider not offering bulk, automated registrations. I am also sure, that there are places that could you help with your problem. Bulk automated registration is the only way you can offer domain name registrations to normal customers as it is the only cost effective way.
However, please also explain then how verification will not simply lead to an increase of identity theft and harassment of innocents who just happen to have their private details abused by a criminal in order to have verifyable data.
This is merely speculation on your part. The current situation is that they put nonsense in the registration forms. Actually, it is not:
From the abuse complaints we get, the vast majority of domain names involved use data that looks real, and only a very small number uses "dedfdfdfdfreijlghjkd" or the like.
Verification to me is a red herring.
Volker
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction. Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands. There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects. Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
"John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Volker, Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place. It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme. --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme... BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc. Volker Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Volker, As just a human being, I also believe in data protection and data privacy, as well information that needs to be public should be and information that does not should not. However, whois data was intended to public, so taking away public access is extreme. (I am only concerned with the money, not individuals). You do not get to decide what I think I need, nor what the rest of the public needs. We can all decide for ourselves. I, for example, wish the NSA had not decided that I did not need to know what they were doing. But that is way of topic. --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network. Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network). The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think). I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
"John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
This was discussed at some length at the EWG, and that was the conclusion. Part of the reason the EWG was set up was indeed to set a fresh look, and avoid paving the cow path, as the saying goes. (apologies to non-english speakers). Which brings me to the merits of multistakeholderism, and an earlier remark from someone (I forget whom and am not going to look it up) about personal agenda, and a purpose of stalling the process. While I am prepared to apologize daily for not understanding the intricacies of registration and business models of registrars of all types, I make no apology for intervening (and thus slowing any process) on matters where it appears I have expertise that could be lacking in the discussion. This expertise would include managing multi-stakeholder negotiations on matters of public policy in a domestic government setting, and in International government fora. It would also include data protection law, which is no less important than criminal or competition or IP law in the eyes of those who count on human rights law to protect the individual, and in the fabric of the constitution of many jurisdictions. I do hope that the remark about slowing down the process to achieve a personal agenda was not aimed at me; I am paid by noone and I am honestly trying to make sure ICANN does not do something really stupid here and thus collect more black marks on the multistakeholder model report card. respectfully, Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-20, at 1:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network.
Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network).
The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think).
I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Stephanie, I believe I am responsible for the remark about "slowing down a process to achieve a personal agenda." It was not aimed at you. Most of my criticisms are reserved for the registrars :) It was intended for those who slow things down as method of preventing something, not for people who slow things down to think in a serious way about a problem. --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
This was discussed at some length at the EWG, and that was the conclusion. Part of the reason the EWG was set up was indeed to set a fresh look, and avoid paving the cow path, as the saying goes. (apologies to non-english speakers). Which brings me to the merits of multistakeholderism, and an earlier remark from someone (I forget whom and am not going to look it up) about personal agenda, and a purpose of stalling the process. While I am prepared to apologize daily for not understanding the intricacies of registration and business models of registrars of all types, I make no apology for intervening (and thus slowing any process) on matters where it appears I have expertise that could be lacking in the discussion. This expertise would include managing multi-stakeholder negotiations on matters of public policy in a domestic government setting, and in International government fora. It would also include data protection law, which is no less important than criminal or competition or IP law in the eyes of those who count on human rights law to protect the individual, and in the fabric of the constitution of many jurisdictions. I do hope that the remark about slowing down the process to achieve a personal agenda was not aimed at me; I am paid by noone and I am honestly trying to make sure ICANN does not do something really stupid here and thus collect more black marks on the multistakeholder model report card. respectfully, Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-20, at 1:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network.
Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network).
The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think).
I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen: Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Thanks, I am vastly reassured and shall ready my stick to thrust into the spokes of the wheel afresh! cheers Stephanie On 2014-01-20, at 2:53 PM, Bob Bruen wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
I believe I am responsible for the remark about "slowing down a process to achieve a personal agenda." It was not aimed at you. Most of my criticisms are reserved for the registrars :)
It was intended for those who slow things down as method of preventing something, not for people who slow things down to think in a serious way about a problem.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
This was discussed at some length at the EWG, and that was the conclusion. Part of the reason the EWG was set up was indeed to set a fresh look, and avoid paving the cow path, as the saying goes. (apologies to non-english speakers). Which brings me to the merits of multistakeholderism, and an earlier remark from someone (I forget whom and am not going to look it up) about personal agenda, and a purpose of stalling the process. While I am prepared to apologize daily for not understanding the intricacies of registration and business models of registrars of all types, I make no apology for intervening (and thus slowing any process) on matters where it appears I have expertise that could be lacking in the discussion. This expertise would include managing multi-stakeholder negotiations on matters of public policy in a domestic government setting, and in International government fora. It would also include data protection law, which is no less important than criminal or competition or IP law in the eyes of those who count on human rights law to protect the individual, and in the fabric of the constitution of many jurisdictions. I do hope that the remark about slowing down the process to achieve a personal agenda was not aimed at me; I am paid by noone and I am honestly trying to make sure ICANN does not do something really stupid here and thus collect more black marks on the multistakeholder model report card. respectfully, Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-20, at 1:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network.
Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network).
The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think).
I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen: Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Well at least we now know your agenda.
On Jan 20, 2014, at 2:54 PM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
I believe I am responsible for the remark about "slowing down a process to achieve a personal agenda." It was not aimed at you. Most of my criticisms are reserved for the registrars :)
It was intended for those who slow things down as method of preventing something, not for people who slow things down to think in a serious way about a problem.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
This was discussed at some length at the EWG, and that was the conclusion. Part of the reason the EWG was set up was indeed to set a fresh look, and avoid paving the cow path, as the saying goes. (apologies to non-english speakers). Which brings me to the merits of multistakeholderism, and an earlier remark from someone (I forget whom and am not going to look it up) about personal agenda, and a purpose of stalling the process. While I am prepared to apologize daily for not understanding the intricacies of registration and business models of registrars of all types, I make no apology for intervening (and thus slowing any process) on matters where it appears I have expertise that could be lacking in the discussion. This expertise would include managing multi-stakeholder negotiations on matters of public policy in a domestic government setting, and in International government fora. It would also include data protection law, which is no less important than criminal or competition or IP law in the eyes of those who count on human rights law to protect the individual, and in the fabric of the constitution of many jurisdictions. I do hope that the remark about slowing down the process to achieve a personal agenda was not aimed at me; I am paid by noone and I am honestly trying to make sure ICANN does not do something really stupid here and thus collect more black marks on the multistakeholder model report card. respectfully, Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-20, at 1:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network.
Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network).
The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think).
I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen: Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
"John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kathy, It might be worthwhile to go through the old RFCs. The original ARPANET directory evolved into whois. Here are few data points, as you can see public information for those using ARPANET included personal information. 1) ARPANET INFORMATION BROCHURE 1978 "The ARPANET DIRECTORY - A directory of users and hosts on the ARPANET. It gives the names, network and U.S.mail address, phone number and host affiliation of ARPANET users, as well as summar tables of host information," =================================================== 2) 1982 Ken Harrenstien and Vic White released RFC 812 entitled NICNAME/WHOIS, the first time WHOIS was used in the the first time WHOIS was used in the title of an RFC and the official call to make WHOIS a specific named service. The purpose of this RFC is to describe the service "The server is accessible across the ARPANET from user programs running on local hosts, and it delivers the full name, U.S. address, telephone number, and network mailbox for ARPANET users." ============================================== ICANN took control in 1998 and the RAA followed. The ICANN version of whois included the name, address, phone number, etc. ======================================================================================== fwiw, I was in a meeting with Scott back in 1990 when ESNet and MIT needed to figure out a peering relationship on campus. At that time there were more than just universities with domains. The network was not that closed. It was limited by the number of places joining in. Yes, Milton has written about the early days. A good resource. --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network.
Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network).
The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think).
I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen: Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
I disagree with any proposal to create ³categories² or ³classes² of registrants, with limited or restricted privileges. Specifically: ‹How would P/P services detect/enforce the correct Class? Particularly given that bad actors will do what they always do, and just lie. ‹How would we address edge cases, such as sole proprietors, or aspirant entrepreneurs? Are political campaigns, individual candidates, or churches seeking donations considered ³commercial² users? ‹What other current (and future) ICANN policies would be bifurcated and applied differently to different Classes? Should there also be a process to upgrade/downgrade a Registrant post-registration? ‹ And finally, I do not agree with the blanket (and unsupported) contention that all commercial users of P/P services are causing ³harms.² In fact, the WHOIS Review Team and other groups have clearly articulated several legitimate use cases for commercial access to these services. Thanks‹ J. On 1/20/14, 7:10 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Hi All, The Whois Review Team did find legitimate use cases for commercial access to proxy/privacy services -- based in large part on a candid discussion with commercial communities in ICANN about how they use proxy/privacy services, including when they are launching a new business, naming a new good or service (get the cool domain name then develop the marketing campaign, then unveil it), not disclosing a merger before its time (to avoid reflections on stock prices), not disclosing a movie name before its time (this happened to great embarrassment and now attorneys and p/p service providers are used until it is time to unveil the movie's promotional campaign). Please see Recommendation 10 of the Whois Review Team report, which includes: "Privacy and Proxy Services Findings Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. These services are clearly meeting a market demand, and it is equally clear that these services are complicating the WHOIS landscape. Privacy and proxy services are used to address noncommercial and commercial interests, which many view as legitimate. For example, *Individuals* – who prefer not to have their personal data published on the Internet as part of a WHOIS record; *Organizations* – as religious, political or ethnic minority, or sharing controversial moral or sexual information; and *Companies* – for upcoming mergers, new product or service names, new movie names, or other product launches." Please see the full Recommendation 10 at --- http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf Best, Kathy ----- James Bladel wrote -----
I disagree with any proposal to create ³categories² or ³classes² of registrants, with limited or restricted privileges. Specifically:
‹How would P/P services detect/enforce the correct Class? Particularly given that bad actors will do what they always do, and just lie.
‹How would we address edge cases, such as sole proprietors, or aspirant entrepreneurs? Are political campaigns, individual candidates, or churches seeking donations considered ³commercial² users?
‹What other current (and future) ICANN policies would be bifurcated and applied differently to different Classes? Should there also be a process to upgrade/downgrade a Registrant post-registration?
‹ And finally, I do not agree with the blanket (and unsupported) contention that all commercial users of P/P services are causing ³harms.² In fact, the WHOIS Review Team and other groups have clearly articulated several legitimate use cases for commercial access to these services.
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 7:10 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kathy,
From my point of view only:
Individuals - not relevant because not commercial Non-Profit - not relevant because not commercial Commercial with reasons - These reasons in general are temporary and create a limited use class.
From my experience (and others) these uses make up a small number of the whole p/p group.
--bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, The Whois Review Team did find legitimate use cases for commercial access to proxy/privacy services -- based in large part on a candid discussion with commercial communities in ICANN about how they use proxy/privacy services, including when they are launching a new business, naming a new good or service (get the cool domain name then develop the marketing campaign, then unveil it), not disclosing a merger before its time (to avoid reflections on stock prices), not disclosing a movie name before its time (this happened to great embarrassment and now attorneys and p/p service providers are used until it is time to unveil the movie's promotional campaign).
Please see Recommendation 10 of the Whois Review Team report, which includes:
"Privacy and Proxy Services Findings
Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. These services are clearly meeting a market demand, and it is equally clear that these services are complicating the WHOIS landscape.
Privacy and proxy services are used to address noncommercial and commercial interests, which many view as legitimate. For example,
Individuals – who prefer not to have their personal data published on the Internet as part of a WHOIS record; Organizations – as religious, political or ethnic minority, or sharing controversial moral or sexual information; and Companies – for upcoming mergers, new product or service names, new movie names, or other product launches."
Please see the full Recommendation 10 at --- http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
Best, Kathy -----
James Bladel wrote -----
I disagree with any proposal to create ³categories² or ³classes² of registrants, with limited or restricted privileges. Specifically:
‹How would P/P services detect/enforce the correct Class? Particularly given that bad actors will do what they always do, and just lie.
‹How would we address edge cases, such as sole proprietors, or aspirant entrepreneurs? Are political campaigns, individual candidates, or churches seeking donations considered ³commercial² users?
‹What other current (and future) ICANN policies would be bifurcated and applied differently to different Classes? Should there also be a process to upgrade/downgrade a Registrant post-registration?
‹ And finally, I do not agree with the blanket (and unsupported) contention that all commercial users of P/P services are causing ³harms.² In fact, the WHOIS Review Team and other groups have clearly articulated several legitimate use cases for commercial access to these services.
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 7:10 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi James, My opinions only, Inline.. On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
I disagree with any proposal to create ³categories² or ³classes² of registrants, with limited or restricted privileges. Specifically:
‹How would P/P services detect/enforce the correct Class? Particularly given that bad actors will do what they always do, and just lie.
I do not know how this would work, but I imagine something like the way it is supposed to work with whois accuracy. When a bad actor is discovered, a complaint gets filed.
‹How would we address edge cases, such as sole proprietors, or aspirant entrepreneurs? Are political campaigns, individual candidates, or churches seeking donations considered ³commercial² users?
Again, edge cases should derail the process. Sole proprietors and entrepreneurs are still commercial entities. Non-profit already has a definition. And yes, some jurisdictions have issues with this.
‹What other current (and future) ICANN policies would be bifurcated and applied differently to different Classes? Should there also be a process to upgrade/downgrade a Registrant post-registration?
Yes, there should be a way to change it after the fact, just like changing a registrant's address.
‹ And finally, I do not agree with the blanket (and unsupported) contention that all commercial users of P/P services are causing ³harms.² In fact, the WHOIS Review Team and other groups have clearly articulated several legitimate use cases for commercial access to these services.
Just because some uses that might be considered legitimate, it is not enough to stop the overall process. Harm would be protecting the identity of criminals, as happens now.
Thanks‹
J.
On 1/20/14, 7:10 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
I apologize for dropping out of sight. I wasn¹t able to use a keyboard for a few days. I am going to take this message to catch up on a few overdue responses. I am addressing one of Bob¹s points but it is an example of ma broader issue. The discussion of commercial vs noncommercial isn¹t the point of this group. We¹re here to address a broad range of issues concerning proxy and privacy accreditation. While it may turn out to be chicken and egg routine, the commercial issue will arise only if the group decides that we need categorization. Even then it might not be on the basis of commercial vs non commercial. Regardless, these discussions are premature, although I am saving messages for later reference. As I have suggested before and Holly and John wrote over the past couple of days, we need to define our questions and issues before addressing substance. We will send final versions of the letters today. While we will spend a few minutes on them during tomorrow's, the idea is to distribute later in the day. They are an important step in gathering community thoughts, and we will be hampered somewhat in our own work until we get the answers. The letters are organized by the categories that we have been working from, and we have added definitions that we could gather from ICANN materials only. Crafting our own biases the process. Please keep in mind that the letters are different from the charter document that we have been working on. It is for the WG¹s use and we can, and should, take more time on it. I envision revisiting it as long as we remain at work. Talk to you tomorrow. Regards, Don On 1/20/14, 8:10 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Yes to ask the question. We may get answers that provide a deeper understanding of one or other position. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
Jin and all
I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
*From:* Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> *Date:* January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST *To:* PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question*
Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week:
“John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Jim, Thanks. I agree that groupings in the letters would be useful for providing clarity to responders. We are working on a reorganization that will add them using the terms in the Suggested Amendments. I don’t think that it is essential that those categories follow the Suggested Amendments document? I suspect that the questions and groupings will be moving targets for awhile as we learn more, including from letter responses. and make decisions about how to proceed. Dpn From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 1:39 PM To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Don and all, As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs. This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group. In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE). And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions. This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses. I hope these ideas are helpful. Best, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn’t wait a week: “John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?" Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications. Don _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi All, As requested by our chair last week, I have taken Jim Bikoff's groupings and headings as a starting point and expanded them to include Registration questions and other issues. As noted earlier, the questions that we are working off of come from a set of questions gathering by staff at the end of the RAA Negotiations from those still somewhat unhappy with the negotiations. What seems needed as balance is questions about those who are satisfied with the current p/p providers (for the most part) and why. So I have added them, included one that I see discussed a lot since our last call: /=> [//Basic Registration Issues] Should proxy/privacy services continue to be available and accessible to companies, noncommercial organizations and individual who seek them for legal and legitimate purposes? /Below, and also attached, please find an update to Jim Bikoff's excellent start, with questions from a range of perspectives and concerns to help guide our discussions ahead. Please note that I removed no questions, but only added some (in italics). Best, Kathy p.s. please add to our Mind Map as well... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // · *MAINTENANCE* of privacy/proxy services; · /REGISTRATION POLICIES of privacy/proxy services;/ · *CONTACT* point provided by each privacy/proxy service; · *RELAY* of complaints to the privacy/proxy customer; and · *REVEAL* of privacy/proxy customers' identities. If we followed this categorization, the issues and questions would be grouped as follows: *_ MAIN_**_ISSUES_* 1.What, if any, are the types of Standard Service Practices that should be adopted and published by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? 2.Should ICANN distinguish between privacy and proxy services for the purpose of the accreditation process? 3.What are the contractual obligations, if any, that, if unfulfilled, would justify termination of customer access by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? Should there be any forms of non-compliance that would trigger cancellation or suspension of registrations? If so, which? 4.What are the effects of the privacy and proxy service specification contained in the 2013 RAA? Have these new requirements improved WHOIS quality, registrant contactability, and service usability? 5.What should be the contractual obligations of ICANN accredited registrars with regard to accredited privacy/proxy service providers? Should registrars be permitted to knowingly accept registrations where the registrant is using unaccredited service providers that are bound to the same standards as accredited service providers? *_MAINTENANCE_* 1.Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to label WHOIS entries to clearly show when a registration is made through a privacy/proxy service? 2.Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to conduct periodic checks to ensure accuracy of customer contact information; and if so, how? /And if so, to what level (e.g., following the levels of validation and verification set out in the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement or some other level?)/ 3.What rights and responsibilities should [delete: customers of] /domain name registrants using /privacy/proxy services have? What obligations should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers have in managing these rights and responsibilities? Clarify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply. /[Note: for the sake of those in the WG not working regularly on transfers, renewals and PEDNR policies, summaries of current policies and procedures should be provided rapidly by ICANN Staff to bring everyone "up to speed."]/ */_Basic Registration Issues_/* /1.//Should proxy/privacy services continue to be available and accessible to companies, noncommercial organizations and individual who seek them for legal and legitimate purposes?[The Current Policy]/ // /2./Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers distinguish between domain names registered or used for commercial with those registered or used for personal purposes? /What about domain names registered and used for noncommercial purposes such as political, religious, parental and hobby?/ /3./Specifically, is the use of privacy/proxy services appropriate when a domain name is registered or used for commercial purposes? /And how is "commercial purpose" defined?Is it purely for companies actively engaged in "trading" online?Or is it any business online for any reason, including informational and educational?/ /4./Should there be a difference in the data fields to be displayed if the domain name is registered or used for a commercial purpose or by a commercial entity instead of a natural person? /What is "commercial purpose" and is such an inquiry into *_use_* of the domain name even within the scope of ICANN?/ /5./Should the use of privacy/proxy services be restricted only to registrants who are private individuals using the domain name for non-commercial purposes /and noncommercial organizations engaged in the use of the domain name for non-commercial purposes? / *_CONTACT_* 1.What measures should be taken to ensure contactability and responsiveness of the providers? 2.Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to maintain dedicated points of contact for reporting abuse? If so, should the terms be consistent with the requirements applicable to registrars under Section 3.18 of the RAA? 3.Should full WHOIS contact details for ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required? 4.What forms of /alleged /malicious conduct, if any, should be covered by a designated published point of contact at an ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service provider? // /5.//Does the requestor of the alleged malicious information matter, e.g., private party or law enforcement, in the same jurisdiction as the p/p service provider or in another jurisdiction (perhaps pursuant to laws different from the p/p's and registrants' jurisdictions)?/ // *_RELAY _* 1.What, if any, baseline minimum standardized relay processes should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? 2.Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to forward to the customer all allegations of /alleged /illegal activities they receive relating to specific domain names of the customer? /From private parties? From law enforcement?/ *_REVEAL _* 1.What, if any, baseline minimum standardized reveal processes should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers /to hand the information over to the requestor who is a private party/? /Who is a government and/or law enforcement official?/ // /a.What are the minimum standards of proof that should be required for the identity of the requestor?/ /b. What are the minimum standards of proof that should be required for the allegations being raised by the requestor?/ /c. In what jurisdiction should the request be legal (e.g., comparative advertising is legal in the //US//, but not in //Germany//)? / /d. What limitations should the requestor be required to agree to regarding use of the revealed data (e.g., only for the purpose stated in the request and not for publication to the general public)./ // 2./When /should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to reveal customer identities for the specific purpose of ensuring timely service of cease and desist letters /by private attorneys and other parties?/ // 3./When should the Registrant be notified of the request for "reveal" of his/her/its contact information to a private party?Under what circumstances should he/she/it have the opportunity to contest the Reveal _prior to it taking place?_/ 4./Same question as above for requests by government and law enforcement -- both those in the jurisdiction of the p/p service provider and outside. / 5. What forms of alleged malicious conduct, if any, and what evidentiary standard would be sufficient to trigger such disclosure? What specific violations, if any, would be sufficient to trigger such disclosure*//*/by private parties/? 6./Same question as above for requests by government and law enforcement -- both those in the jurisdiction of the p/p service provider and outside. / 7.What safeguards, if any, should be put in place to ensure adequate protections for privacy and freedom of expression /by individuals and noncommercial organizations/? 8./What safeguards, if any, should be put in place to ensure adequate protections against physical and psychological danger (perhaps unrelated to domain name use), e.g., stalking and harassment? / 9./What safeguards, if any, should be put into place to protect small businesses and entrepreneurs against anti-competitive acts by competitors? / 10.Should these standards vary depending on whether the website is being used for commercial or non-commercial purposes? 11.[Relocated from below] What circumstances, if any, would warrant access to registrant data by law enforcement agencies? 12.What clear, workable, enforceable and standardized processes should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy services in order to regulate such access (if such access is warranted)? // /__/ /__/ /_PUBLICATION _/ // /1.//Is publication of the registrant's contact data in the globally-available Whois database something we even want to discuss or leave to the policies of the p/p service provider (as read, understood and agreed to by the Registrant)? / // /2.//Must the Registrant be notified prior to publication and with some time to act to protect homes, business or noncommercial organizations?/ // /3.//Should the registrant have the option of relinquishing the domain name and giving it up, rather than having his/her/its contact data published globally? / 5.What safeguards or remedies should be available in cases where publication is found to have been unwarranted? /_OTHER_/ /Are there other issues we should be taking into account regarding Registrants [ providers of the data], P/P service providers, and Requestors, both public and private [users of the data]?/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>
*From:* Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org <mailto:dblumenthal@pir.org>> *Date:* January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST *To:* PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> *Subject:* *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question*
Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
"John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <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
participants (12)
-
Bob Bruen -
Carlton Samuels -
Don Blumenthal -
Holly Raiche -
James M. Bladel -
Jim Bikoff -
John Horton -
Kathy Kleiman -
Maria Farrell -
Stephanie Perrin -
Tim Ruiz -
Volker Greimann