[PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Sun Jul 5 21:18:02 EEST 2015
I would add to Kathy's excellent explanation, that people who are
already aware they are at risk are welladvised to use permanant proxy
folks to register for them....such as a lawyer. If they get dragged to a
UDRP, all is exposed anyway.
And it feels like thousands of hours...but I guess is only hundreds.
And I second the motion to put Kathy on the list, I keep adding her on
items where she has written the material but sometimes I forget and this
is just stupid, she should be on the policy cttee list.
cheers Steph
On 2015-07-05 12:24, Kathy Kleiman 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
>> <mailto: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 list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150705/91c75621/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list