Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)

[Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

We really appreciate your work on this document and your efforts to capture
the discussions from last week.  Our only minor follow-up comment relates
to the use of the term "donations" in the first sentence of "Eligibility
for Protected Registration."  Per our previous comment, I think there are
some issues with including "donations" as a *per se* reason to disqualify
one from taking advantage of privacy/proxy services, given the frequent
connection between donations and political or other free speech.  With that
said, I recognize that there is value in preventing a specific abuse
relating to donations, namely, charity scams that solicit money.  Perhaps
we can reach a compromise by removing the term from the sentence, but by
broadening the second clause in the sentence to include other abuses beyond
IP infringement, including phishing, malware, financial scams, etc.

We'd love to hear others' views on this point.

Best,

Andy and Aparna


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>   As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member
> review.
>
>  First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting.
> (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf>)
>  It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG 
> (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs>
> )
>
>  Second thing I did was review *prior* BC positions on this, starting
> with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (
> link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.pdf>)
> where the BC said:  "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and
> maintain a centralized WHOIS database."
>
>  Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review 
> (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%20Report.pdf>),
> where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations:
>
>  • Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes
> • Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact
> information;
> • Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities
> of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy
> / Proxy environment.
>
>
>  And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA 
> (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%202013%20RAA%20%5BFINAL%5D.pdf>),
> where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for
> privacy/proxy services.
>
>  Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from
> 29-Aug BC member call.
>
>  Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous
> draft distributed (9-Aug).
>
>     Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so
> we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep.
>
>     Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can
> get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report
> for October publication.
>
>     --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
>
>


-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
*Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>