[PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment

Sun Jul 5 20:26:46 EEST 2015

Hi Kathy,

I'll post your comment to the list and, as it addresses a question I had,
respond as well.

I'll also note that earlier today I had asked the PC for endorsement of a
proposal to add you to the PC list as an Observer. It just makes sense.

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'm not a big fan of "take down or else"
 but I do acknowledge that everything in ICANN is a balance and that there
is a lot more good than bad in both our comment and the proposal. Thanks
everyone for your hard work. Now that I understand the compromises that
were made I'm happy to endorse with the proviso that as the process gores
forward on all things WHOIS we really need to do outreach and involve
domestic violence groups worldwide in the process. Starting with Dublin. No
one should be endangered by a WHOIS listing or forced to give up free
expression rights in order to maintain their safety.

Thanks for educating me on the proposal Kathy. Much appreciated!

Best,

Ed

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

>  Could someone please post the following email to the PC-NCSG (since I am
> not currently on the list)? BTW, could someone please add me to the
> PC-NCSG? After 15 years of writing comments, we should be able to hold
> these conversations directly :-).
>
> Fortunately, that's not what it says, Ed. That's what the IP guys wanted;
> that's not what they got. What the proposed rule says is that the IP guys
> get to make their best case to the Proxy/Privacy Providers, and then the
> Providers reach out to their Customers (the real or "beneficial"
> Registrants). The Customer can respond that their website is using a
> trademark to critique or criticize - certainly a fair use in the US and
> many other places -- or that they are using an overlapping term as a
> regular dictionary word for purposes totally unrelated to the trademark
> owner (e.g., the word fox, or time, or people as Fox Broadcasting or Time
> Warner would not use them).
>
> Further, even if the Customer does not get a chance to respond (e.g, on
> vacation or the notification email went into spam), the Provider still
> looks at the allegations of the IP guys and the use of the domain name and
> on their own authority evaluates the allegations. (You'll never guess who
> added that provision, and who supported it.) So this means that the
> Providers will be looking for those battered women's shelters, political
> dissidents, LGBT sites, etc.
>
> We also push always and all the time for the option of allowing the "take
> down" of a domain name rather than the "reveal" of its data -- an option
> being preserved in the writing of the PPSAI WG's proposal for any Provider
> to offer. We call it the "Wendy Seltzer" rule.
>
> We've fought for many protections in the draft - hundreds if not thousands
> of hours have gone into it. It is the best balance we could strike for
> cheap, accessible, available proxy/privacy services -- and we were up
> against an army of IP attorneys.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
> p.s. in Stockholm with documentary screenings so on and offline.
>
>
> :
>
> Hi,
>
>  I'm sorry for getting to this late, appreciate all of the hard work put
> into the document, but I have trouble endorsing a statement that "strongly
> supports" a requirement that places registrants in a position of having,
> without a court order,  to chose between surrendering their free speech
> rights (domain name) or their personal data. I hardly think we should be an
> enthusiastic about a position that could, for example, force a domestic
> violence victim to lose his or her domain name linked to a page about
>  abuse rather than reveal his or her name to his or her abuser,  or force
> someone who supports LGBT rights from losing his or her domain name linked
> to LGBT rights, or anything else for that matter, rather than reveal his or
> her identity and location.
>
>  If I've misstated the situation please correct me. I recognise that this
> might be better than the alternative but I don't think it is something we
> should "strongly support". As someone with an active restraining order
> against an ex I would hate to be placed in a situation where I would have
> to lose my domain name rather than reveal my personal data to a third
> party. One does not go through a process of being issued a new government
> identity numbers, getting court orders restricting release of drivers
> license and passport  information to LEA, changing portions of ones name,
> to then be forced to chose between safety and speech. Although it may be
> better than the alternative under this completely reckless attempt by LEA
> to shred online privacy, it still is a choice I don't believe we should
> endorse. If I'm wrong please tell me why - I stand ready to be educated.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>>  I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit and I
>> have just done that.  I am doing a last re-check of the document to make
>> sure we did not miss anything.  Kudos to Kathy and James for doing the
>> heavy lifting on this set of comments.  I have made two rather substantive
>> recommendations....I do not think we should even think of compromising on
>> the issue of commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the
>> petitions so no need to concede any ground.  We need to be ready for a
>> battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are still
>> complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing some of their own
>> by now.
>> cheers Stephanie
>> PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so appear
>> to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what??  I would hate to have
>> a really good campaign tarnished by some kind of trolls...
>>
>> On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>>  Hi everyone,
>>
>>  we got the comment for  Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services
>> Issues  report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get
>> individual signatories to give it more wieght.
>> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within
>> next days before that date .
>>
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>  this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and
>> Stephanie.  thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise
>> the concerns and awareness about the report outcome.
>>
>>
>>  Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150705/e62b4699/attachment-0001.html>