[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Wed Apr 29 18:53:28 EEST 2015
I believe the proposed language is biased, and leading. It prompts
people to answer questions that favor the minority who were still
pushing to ban use for commercial transactions. Every IP law student in
American is probably being told to send in their comments on these three
questions. IF you are going to ask these three questions to clarify
their position, then we need three questions on our side (it is late
here, all i can think of right now is Do you believe in human rights?
If so, do you think ICANN should protect them or annihilate them?
(getting a wee bit grumpy with the amount of work coming our way.....:-) )
cheers steph
PS and yes we can leave it in and comment on it, but I think the
questions in the initial report should be balanced.
On 2015-04-29 20:02, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Thanks for forwarding this. I certainly agree with your take on this,
> although I can see why the many IPC members of the PPSAI-PDP-WG would
> not. As far as I know there are no laws prohibiting, or even
> addressing the use of privacy/proxy services by any kind of registrant
> (commercial or other). I certainly do not agree that ICANN should
> start classifying registrants based on their intended use of a domain
> name. I?m actually not sure how a privacy/proxy service provider can
> do this at the time of registration. Is a registrant supposed to
> indicate his/her/its intent of use of the domain name at the time of
> registration? What if the intent changes after registration? Is this a
> tactic to revoke privacy services from a domain name already using
> one? And I see no reason why there should be any special consideration
> for commercial registrants of any kind anyway (I mean in principle).
> Local laws (as far as I know) require that businesses with a web
> presence publish contact information on their websites, so as far as
> local laws are concerned, it?s more of a web content issue than a
> domain name registration issue.
>
> I find it a bit surprising, with the initial report looming in the
> near future, that three of the original charter questions have still
> not been adequately addressed. From your email, I?m guessing there
> have been significant discussions, but why hasn?t the WG taken a
> position after all this time? What are the consensus levels looking
> like around the answers to those questions? What are the RrSG and
> At-Large folks thinking on these questions?
>
> Also, when you say /*?we need to act fast if there is agreement in
> NCSG to push back?*/, what exactly do you mean? Where does the NCSG or
> NCSG PC fit into this at this time? This is still a WG discussion,
> right? Soon, we will have the opportunity to comment on the initial
> report, but is there something you are asking us to do before then?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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 list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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/20150430/3cda98db/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list