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

Mon May 11 12:47:18 EEST 2015

Hi Stephanie - really sorry for the radio silence on this.

I think you are right to push back - and thanks for holding the lines on
this important work.

One suggestion: the models used in some national jurisdictions of guiding
principles on data collection, use, correction, storage and disposal - are
not a similar options possible in the ICANN context? To develop similar
principles in a policy in relation to registrant information (for personal
information at least) collected for one purpose not to be used for another,
etc and then to closely prescribe those purposes (there following debate on
which purposes are permitted )

In relation to proxy services - is it possible to develop some similar kinds
of principles to apply in relation to requests a proxy might have to respond
to?

Joy Liddicoat

From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie
Perrin
Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 3:53 a.m.
To: Amr Elsadr
Cc: NCSG-Policy; Kathy Kleiman
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section
1.3.3

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> 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  <mailto: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 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
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150511/8ddb9607/attachment-0001.html>