Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Hi Osvaldo, is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues, I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services. If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains. Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy. I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy. -Christian On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Osvaldo,
is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Thanks Christian, I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Christian Dawson Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Osvaldo Novoa ; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues, I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services. If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains. Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy. I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy. -Christian On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: Hi Osvaldo, is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
+1 Tony From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Thanks Christian, I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Christian Dawson <mailto:dawson@servint.com> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Osvaldo Novoa <mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues, I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services. If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains. Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy. I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy. -Christian On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: Hi Osvaldo, is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Novoa, Osvaldo <mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 _____ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
As we have received positive feedback to date I'd like to propose specific language to consider send back to the PPSAI WG: Proposed survey response of the ISPCP Constituency: The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Community Questions for London. We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency: Category C Question 1: No. Category C Question 2: No. On Jun 21, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
+1 Tony
From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Thanks Christian,
I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Christian Dawson Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Osvaldo Novoa ; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues,
I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services.
If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains.
Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy.
I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy.
-Christian
On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Osvaldo,
is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Though I couldn't participate in the discussion I totally support propose response from our constituency. Best regards, Osvaldo El 22/06/2014, a las 12:50, "Christian Dawson" <dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com>> escribió: As we have received positive feedback to date I'd like to propose specific language to consider send back to the PPSAI WG: Proposed survey response of the ISPCP Constituency: The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Community Questions for London. We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency: Category C Question 1: No. Category C Question 2: No. <PPSAI Community Questions for London.docx> On Jun 21, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: +1 Tony From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Thanks Christian, I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Christian Dawson<mailto:dawson@servint.com> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Osvaldo Novoa<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues, I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services. If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains. Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy. I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy. -Christian On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Hi Osvaldo, is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Novoa, Osvaldo<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
+1 Tony -----Original Message----- From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa@Antel.com.uy] Sent: 22 June 2014 12:54 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Tony Holmes; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] Agenda for 17 June WG call Though I couldn't participate in the discussion I totally support propose response from our constituency. Best regards, Osvaldo El 22/06/2014, a las 12:50, "Christian Dawson" <dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com>> escribió: As we have received positive feedback to date I'd like to propose specific language to consider send back to the PPSAI WG: Proposed survey response of the ISPCP Constituency: The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Community Questions for London. We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency: Category C Question 1: No. Category C Question 2: No. <PPSAI Community Questions for London.docx> On Jun 21, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: +1 Tony From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Thanks Christian, I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Christian Dawson<mailto:dawson@servint.com> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Osvaldo Novoa<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues, I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services. If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains. Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy. I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy. -Christian On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Hi Osvaldo, is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Novoa, Osvaldo<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
+1 Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone
Am 22.06.2014 um 13:13 schrieb Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>:
+1 Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa@Antel.com.uy] Sent: 22 June 2014 12:54 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Tony Holmes; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] Agenda for 17 June WG call
Though I couldn't participate in the discussion I totally support propose response from our constituency. Best regards, Osvaldo
El 22/06/2014, a las 12:50, "Christian Dawson" <dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com>> escribió:
As we have received positive feedback to date I'd like to propose specific language to consider send back to the PPSAI WG:
Proposed survey response of the ISPCP Constituency:
The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Community Questions for London.
We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency:
Category C Question 1: No. Category C Question 2: No.
<PPSAI Community Questions for London.docx>
On Jun 21, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote:
+1 Tony
From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Thanks Christian,
I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Christian Dawson<mailto:dawson@servint.com> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Osvaldo Novoa<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues,
I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services.
If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains.
Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy.
I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy.
-Christian
On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote:
Hi Osvaldo,
is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Novoa, Osvaldo<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401
________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
+1 Eduardo Parajo -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:18 PM To: Tony Holmes Cc: Novoa, Osvaldo; Christian Dawson; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] Agenda for 17 June WG call +1 Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone
Am 22.06.2014 um 13:13 schrieb Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>:
+1 Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa@Antel.com.uy] Sent: 22 June 2014 12:54 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Tony Holmes; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] Agenda for 17 June WG call
Though I couldn't participate in the discussion I totally support propose response from our constituency. Best regards, Osvaldo
El 22/06/2014, a las 12:50, "Christian Dawson" <dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com>> escribió:
As we have received positive feedback to date I'd like to propose specific language to consider send back to the PPSAI WG:
Proposed survey response of the ISPCP Constituency:
The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Community Questions for London.
We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency:
Category C Question 1: No. Category C Question 2: No.
<PPSAI Community Questions for London.docx>
On Jun 21, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote:
+1 Tony
From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Thanks Christian,
I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Christian Dawson<mailto:dawson@servint.com> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Osvaldo Novoa<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ; ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues,
I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services.
If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains.
Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy.
I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy.
-Christian
On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote:
Hi Osvaldo,
is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Novoa, Osvaldo<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org<mailto:ispcp@icann.org> Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401
________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Colleagues, As we have received 6 positive responses and no negative responses since Sunday, I will pass this along as our response to the PPSAI Working Group. Thank you, Christian Dawson On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, Christian Dawson wrote: As we have received positive feedback to date I'd like to propose specific language to consider send back to the PPSAI WG: Proposed survey response of the ISPCP Constituency: The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers operate Internet backbone networks and/or provide access to Internet and related services to End Users. We are key players on the Internet, and have an essential role in its stability and development. The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency seeks to selectively respond to the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Community Questions for London. We focus comments only on Category C, and seek to state unequivocally that we do not believe in a threshold for privacy & proxy services. We do not believe that it is appropriate or in-scope for this group to address this, nor do we believe it necessary or practical for ICANN to require categorization of use for a domain of any contracted party. We therefore file the following official responses on behalf of our constituency: Category C Question 1: No. Category C Question 2: No. On Jun 21, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
+1 Tony
From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29 To: Christian Dawson Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Thanks Christian,
I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Christian Dawson Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Osvaldo Novoa ; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues,
I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services.
If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains.
Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy.
I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy & proxy.
-Christian
On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Osvaldo,
is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous recommendation? Otherwise I would say – if full community (SG) representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call
Dear All, I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the deliberations within the group. I would appreciate your comments. Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x7120 Voice Chief Operating Officer, ServInt (703)847-1383 Fax www.servint.net dawson@servint.com -------------------------
participants (6)
-
Christian Dawson -
Eduardo Parajo -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Tony Holmes -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de -
WUKnoben