Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG¹s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG¹s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG¹s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion that during the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added) -- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial. Holly On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatduring the implementation phase of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. (emphasis added)
-- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM To: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 To: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 from me also, we do not want to do down this slippery slope. Best regards, Theo Geurts Holly Raiche schreef op 2015-09-20 03:56 AM:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion thatDURING THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here. THIS COULD BE AN APPROPRIATE USE OF IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES. (emphasis added)
-- if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
PHILIP S. CORWIN, FOUNDING PRINCIPAL VIRTUALAW LLC 1155 F STREET, NW SUITE 1050 WASHINGTON, DC 20004 202-559-8597/DIRECT 202-559-8750/FAX 202-255-6172/CELL
TWITTER: @VLAWDC
_"LUCK IS THE RESIDUE OF DESIGN" -- BRANCH RICKEY_
FROM: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Michele Neylon - Blacknight SENT: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM TO: James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press [1] - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social [3]
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish [4]
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon DATE: Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 TO: Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
FROM: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong DATE: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 TO: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" SUBJECT: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
-------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com [5] Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date._______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Links: ------ [1] http://www.blacknight.press/ [2] http://www.technology.ie/ [3] http://mneylon.social/ [4] http://www.michele.irish/ [5] http://www.avg.com/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Holly (and James, Michele, and Phil). Stephanie Perrin On 2015-09-19 21:56, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase*of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources.*(emphasis added) ** *--*if there is no consensus on**the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.** *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/cell*** ** *Twitter: @VlawDC* */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:*Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:*James Gannon; Mary Wong;gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press <http://www.blacknight.press/>- get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie <http://www.technology.ie/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social:http://mneylon.social <http://mneylon.social/> Random Stuff:http://www.michele.irish <http://www.michele.irish/> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To:*Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James *From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To:*"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 James G, Michele, Phil and Holly. This report is stunningly unsupported by the consensus of the WG. It is a complete nonstarter. It further undermines confidence in this PDP process. Kathy On 9/19/2015 9:56 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services. Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase*of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources.*(emphasis added) ** *--*if there is no consensus on**the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.** *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/cell*** ** *Twitter: @VlawDC* */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:*Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:*James Gannon; Mary Wong;gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report I agree strongly with James G’s assessment. If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press <http://www.blacknight.press/>- get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie <http://www.technology.ie/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social:http://mneylon.social <http://mneylon.social/> Random Stuff:http://www.michele.irish <http://www.michele.irish/> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To:*Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement. -James *From:*<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date:*Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To:*"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report Dear WG members, Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received. The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I totally agree with James G, Michele, and Phil. The last two paragraphs seem to fly in the face of the rest of the text. We could not reach consensus on the definitions, let alone the boundaries of what might be excluded from use of the P/P service. I do not understand why we are contemplating any further work on the issue. The overwhelming majority of comments did not support it. the WG does not support it. In Phil’s words, surely the horse is well and truly dead and the only appropriate action now is a respectful burial.
Holly
On 19 Sep 2015, at 9:21 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1. While I was unable to make the last call those final two paragraphs seem out of sync with the long description of why there is no consensus on circumscribing the use of P/P services forcommercial or transactional services.
Further, as regards this paragraph— The Working Group also considered the suggestion that*during the implementation phase* of the accreditation system, priority be given to the development of an illustrative framework mechanism for how complaints that a particular domain name is being used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes should be submitted, processed, evaluated, and acted upon. Concerns that a blanket prohibition against the use of P/P services associated with a domain name used to carry out online financial transactions for commercial purposes would have a chilling effect could be adequately addressed by developing an additional disclosure framework. Requests for further legal analysis of when disclosure is warranted in these situations could find its home here*. This could be an appropriate use of implementation resources. *(emphasis added)
*-- *if there is no consensus on the definitions of “online financial transactions for commercial purposes” or on placing any restrictions on them, then how could developing an “Illustrative framework mechanism” possibly be considered an appropriate implementation measure? There is no underlying policy to be implemented. Seems more like an attempt to beat a dead horse back to life.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct* *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax* *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 5:45 PM *To:* James Gannon; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
I agree strongly with James G’s assessment.
If we agree that there should be no “special” restriction for commercial / financial usage of domains, then why on earth is this language there? I don’t understand it. Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:34 *To: *Mary Wong, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
*From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 *To: *"gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" *Subject: *[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:34 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Thanks for your work on this guys, while understanding that we will be discussing this on the call I will raise now my disagreement with the final two paragraphs on creating an alternative disclosure framework at some point in the future for commercial domains, I don’t feel these represent the consensus or agreement of the WG and would respectfully object against their inclusion. I was under the impression that we had agreed that the public had shown their overall disagreement with a framework that included categorisation of domains, my read of the final 2 paras seems to fly in the face of that agreement.
-James
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong Date: Friday 18 September 2015 20:21 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed draft language to update Section 1.3.3 of the WG Initial Report
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Here's a perfect example of tautology "In other words, it is difficult to assume that the many commenters who answered (in effect) that registrations used to engage in “commercial activities” or to carry out “online financial transactions” should continue to be allowed to use P/P services would necessarily have answered the question the same way with regard to all conceivable definitions of these terms." Say it ain't so! So let me get this straight. We think commenters in this context don't know what they mean by 'commercial activities' simply because one or other of us might not share their definition of what constitutes a 'commercial activity'? As to the WG discussions, what I recall is an explicit rejection of restrictions based on someone's estimation of the meaning of 'commercial activity' because it was considered a sliding scale which would be difficult to locate without inherent discrimination of minority groups. The At-Large position is that we should not restrict usage of the p/p service so long as the policing of the terms of service - and especially how violations are handled - apply across the board and equally to all. I object on principle to all attempts at a priori discrimination and via definition. In my part of the world, we are always wary of definitional-based restrictions because some fellow will always say its benign until such time. We always keep top of mind the question 'when is a human being not a human being'? And we remember the answer by supposedly reasonable men: 'when they're only 2/3rd of a human being'! -Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached some proposed language from the WG co-chairs in respect of Section 1.3.3 of the WG’s Initial Report, i.e. the availability and use of P/P services for domain names associated with online financial transactions. The suggested language is based on the reports from Sub Team 2 and the WG’s deliberations on this point following review of the various public comments received.
The co-chairs would like to include a discussion of this proposed language on the next WG call, and as such we are circulating it to you now so that you will have a chance to review it before then. If finalized and approved, this will be included in the WG’s Final Report on this topic.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (9)
-
Carlton Samuels -
gtheo -
Holly Raiche -
James Gannon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Phil Corwin -
Stephanie Perrin