Dear all,
To various degrees each Sub Team cc’d here has
been discussing how it wishes to approach both the specific
language of, as well as the additional comments that
accompanied, the Save Domain Privacy petition that was signed by
10,042 people. I did a quick skim of the additional comments
that were sent in as an attachment to the petition and prepared
the following summary based on the initial categories used by
the Save Domain Privacy organizers in their statement. Some of
this may be more relevant or useful to one rather than another
Sub Team, but I thought it may be helpful to send it to all of
you nonetheless.
For Sub Team 2 on Section 1.3.3, while
there were quite a few comments that did not distinguish between
personal-use domains and websites with those used for commercial
purposes, there were other commenters who linked their concerns
over privacy or anonymity with their specific experiences as
registrants or proxy customers of domains that are used in
relation to online financial transactions of one sort or other.
Please see the categories below for additional details.
For Sub Team 3 on Annex E, on the
question of whether “verifiable evidence” means only a court
order, no commenter expressly said this is what the phrase must
mean, although a few noted that disclosure should only take
place upon either a court order, warrant, due process or (in one
instance) “some legal document”. Several mentioned the
possibility of getting a subpoena or a warrant (with a few
adding that this is due process that should be obtained from
legal channels, law enforcement or a government agency). Others
simply noted that these are existing channels that can be used
without specifying if they believed these to be the only ones.
One or two mentioned the need that disclosure be made only upon
“probable cause” or “good cause” but without specifically
linking this to a court order. As such, and if I may, I don’t
think we can say that there is unequivocal support from the
additional comments to the petition for one specific meaning to
the term “verifiable” (should the Sub Team or Working Group wish
to go down that path).
While
there were numerous comments that simply stated the commenter’s
wish for privacy and/or the need to respect the right to privacy
in general terms, there were also numerous commenters that tried
to relate their opinions to specific concerns.
Generally, the most common concerns that can
be gleaned from these additional comments to the SDP petition
seem to be:
- Doxing/SWAT-ing and
concerns about physical safety (e.g. stalking, harassment
or where registrant is in an unsafe or threatening
location)
- Anonymity needs for
certain individuals and organizations (e.g. those serving
at-risk communities, targeted minorities, political and
religious activists)
- Lack of separation of
online business presence from personal information, in
some cases for cost reasons and especially for home-based
or small businesses (e.g. online shop owners, freelancers,
self-employed persons, writers)
- Registrants who use
pseudonyms and pen names for legal reasons (e.g. adult
entertainers, erotica authors)
- Data harvesting concerns
- Spam, scams and identity
theft (e.g. phishing attempts)
- Other legitimate need for
privacy of domain information, e.g. new product launches,
business competitors, pre-launch websites
I hope some at least of this is
useful to your groups as you try to complete your discussions
on this question and move on to reviewing the other comments.
I will try to upload the document that contains all these
additional comments to your respective Sub Team wiki pages if
I can (it is 554 PDF pages!); in the meantime, here is the
link to it in the public comment forum:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfCL0NdiQmaL.pdf.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy
Director
Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1
603 574 4889
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai4 mailing list
Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai4