[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3

Wed Apr 29 02:57:53 EEST 2015

Hi Stephanie,

thanks for the brief, maybe it is  worthy to remind the WG that 2 critical
tracks within ICANN, IANA and accountability are or going to put reports
for comments during the same timeframe. so it is unrealistic  even within
ICANN community to give input with such constraints.

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-29 7:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  Hi folks, I am forwarding to you my latest missive to the privacy proxy
> services working group.  While this is very instructive to see how ICANN
> operates as an institution, particularly when the IPC is chairing, we need
> to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to push back.  We are on our 74th
> working group meeting apparently now and there is a push for closure as you
> can see below....they want the 100 page report out for comment by May 4.
> We have been demanding a longer comment period so we can reach out to users
> of privacy proxy services, suggestion is 60 days.   The issue of use of
> proxy services by those "conducting commercial activity" in the view of
> facebook and the IPC includes a charity asking for donations (even though
> the financial bit is through a  provider service) or an entity of
> individual serving ads and thereby getting micropayments.  This is a matter
> for national law in my view, and ICANN should not be dabbling in it.  It
> guts privacy.  I would remind everyone thinking about this for the first
> time that the argument is being made on the basis of a web service
> paradigm, but it would have to be implemented in a way that includes the
> stockpiling of names that are not being actively used, or are only used for
> email.
>
> Advice on pushback welcome, I have not even waited to consult my
> colleagues on the group as time is pressing; I know we have been fighting
> this for a year and a half and I spent a lot of time on the EWG fighting
> back Facebook on the same issue.
> Reactions and strategy??  AS you can see I am protesting the short turn
> around time for dissenting statements too....although Kathy no doubt has
> anticipated a slimey move like this one and has one written just in case
> :-)   With respect to strategy.....if we leave this in we have a lovely
> headline (ICANN moves to restrict privacy proxy services for endangered
> groups and human rights workers).
> cheers Stephanie
> PS yes I do know this is only a consultation, but it is the big
> one....especially with no reply comments period.
> -------- Forwarded Message --------  Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
> PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3  Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:39:04
> +0900  From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>  To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked on
> the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not support the
> inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions without the
> opposing questions.  To do so would be to reflect a fundamental bias.  I
> would prefer to say something along the lines of the use of proxy services
> by commercial entities could be restricted by national law, where such law
> applies.
> I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial activity.
> It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such restrictions on Internet
> activity through its limited remit over domain name registration, a point
> which we have made repeatedly.
> If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view leading)
> text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing
> statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am surprised to
> see announced at this late date.
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
>
> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and to
> Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and staff met this afternoon
> to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>
> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we
> recognize there is considerable support for extending the public comment
> period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we have all been
> planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but with the caveat that this
> will have repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work once public
> comments have been received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline
> is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we
> will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and August, some
> of which may need to be more than an hour in length, to review these
> comments and move toward a Final Report.  Otherwise, we jeopardize the
> prospects for getting the Final Report in front of the GNSO council no
> later than the Dublin ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many
> additional steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final
> Report before any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time
> pressure imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end
> of next year is already real.
>
> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG members
> (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or additional
> statement for inclusion in the package posted for public comment next
> Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no later than
> Thursday, April 30.
>
> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 1.3.3
> of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier today but
> which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We agree that this section
> could benefit from some revision, but believe it should take the form of
> greater concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the
> divergent positions.  Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read
> as follows:
>
> ---
>
>  Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is
> registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting commercial
> activity should not preclude the use of P/P services , there was
> disagreement over whether domain names that are actively used for
> commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of goods or services)
> should be prohibited from using P/P services. While most WG members did not
> believe such a prohibition is necessary or practical, some members believed
> that registrants of such domain names should not be able to use or continue
> using proxy or privacy services.
>
> For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit access
> to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the following text was
> proposed to clarify and define their position: ?domains used for online
> financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for
> privacy and proxy registrations.?
>
>  Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following
> questions:
>
>
>    - Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial
>    activities and which are used for online financial transactions be
>    prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?
>    - If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of ?commercial? or
>    ?transactional? to define those domains for which P/P service registrations
>    should be disallowed? And if so, what should the definition(s) be??
>    - Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields
>    to be displayed as a result?
>
>  ---
> Thanks,
>
> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>
> --
> _________________________
> Graeme Bunton
> Manager, Management Information Systems
> Manager, Public Policy
> Tucows Inc.
> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/c7c6333c/attachment.html>