Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" - it's made up of varying shades of different colours You and others like to over simplify things. And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question 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
Hi Michele, I am well aware of how the world works. The attempt at simplification is to make the problem more managable, not to ignore the tough issues. It is a pretty standard way to attack problems. It is also a way to cut through the distractions presented by folks with an agenda, that may include derailing a process :) --bob On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Bob
With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" - it's made up of varying shades of different colours
You and others like to over simplify things.
And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
Registrars suggested this process, why would they derail it? Unfounded accusations get us no where. Regardless, I think focusing too much on "who" uses a p/p is a reherring. Criminals will just lie and say they are not commercial, then go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway. They will eventually get detected as happens now and then will get shut down. Trying to predict intent is impossible. If that were easy, security lines in airports would be a whole lot simpler. It makes a lot more sense to me to first worry about "who" is being accredited, which is what is missing in all these discussions so far, and even not as tight as it should be in the Registrar Accreditation process for that matter. Let's first focus on having a tight accreditation process that keeps the bad apple applicants out and makes sure ICANN knows who they are dealing with. Tim
On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:26 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Michele,
I am well aware of how the world works. The attempt at simplification is to make the problem more managable, not to ignore the tough issues. It is a pretty standard way to attack problems.
It is also a way to cut through the distractions presented by folks with an agenda, that may include derailing a process :)
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Bob
With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" - it's made up of varying shades of different colours
You and others like to over simplify things.
And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
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
-- 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
Meant red herring (mobile keyboard challenged :-)
On Jan 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
Registrars suggested this process, why would they derail it? Unfounded accusations get us no where.
Regardless, I think focusing too much on "who" uses a p/p is a reherring. Criminals will just lie and say they are not commercial, then go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway. They will eventually get detected as happens now and then will get shut down. Trying to predict intent is impossible. If that were easy, security lines in airports would be a whole lot simpler.
It makes a lot more sense to me to first worry about "who" is being accredited, which is what is missing in all these discussions so far, and even not as tight as it should be in the Registrar Accreditation process for that matter. Let's first focus on having a tight accreditation process that keeps the bad apple applicants out and makes sure ICANN knows who they are dealing with.
Tim
On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:26 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Michele,
I am well aware of how the world works. The attempt at simplification is to make the problem more managable, not to ignore the tough issues. It is a pretty standard way to attack problems.
It is also a way to cut through the distractions presented by folks with an agenda, that may include derailing a process :)
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Bob
With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" - it's made up of varying shades of different colours
You and others like to over simplify things.
And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
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
-- 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
Thanks Tim,
Registrars suggested this process, why would they derail it? Unfounded accusations get us no where. you are exactly right. The ICANN negotiation team on the 2013 RAA negotiations originally wanted to have this debate included in the RAA talks. Registrars felt that this topic needed full community agreement and was therefore better relegated to a PDP, while putting a temporary framework in place in the RAA for the time being. Being a member for the NT, I can tell you that we fought for this PDP for a long time.
We have no interest in "derailing" an effort we essentially set in motion ourselves.
Regardless, I think focusing too much on "who" uses a p/p is a reherring. Criminals will just lie and say they are not commercial, then go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway. They will eventually get detected as happens now and then will get shut down. Trying to predict intent is impossible. If that were easy, security lines in airports would be a whole lot simpler. Agreed again. The use of the registration only happens after registration, so there is no way of knowing whether a site is fully, partially or not at all used commercially. For that, you have to look and even then you only see a partial picture, especially if the hosting happens somewhere else. And you can reasonably only look where there is a complaint. So even if the policies were to say commercial use would be excluded, nothing would change as there first has to be a complaint and review, same as with an abuse complaint today. It makes a lot more sense to me to first worry about "who" is being accredited, which is what is missing in all these discussions so far, and even not as tight as it should be in the Registrar Accreditation process for that matter. Let's first focus on having a tight accreditation process that keeps the bad apple applicants out and makes sure ICANN knows who they are dealing with. Agreed.
Volker
On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:26 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Michele,
I am well aware of how the world works. The attempt at simplification is to make the problem more managable, not to ignore the tough issues. It is a pretty standard way to attack problems.
It is also a way to cut through the distractions presented by folks with an agenda, that may include derailing a process :)
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Bob
With all due respect the world is not made up of "black and white" - it's made up of varying shades of different colours
You and others like to over simplify things.
And if you, or anyone else, is going to make assertions about numbers please provide actual statistics ie. Facts NOT hearsay
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
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 -- 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
participants (4)
-
Bob Bruen -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Tim Ruiz -
Volker Greimann