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

[Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Laura, Marilyn, Steve and Bill for the further comments.  I don't
think we disagree in principle, just in which term should be used
(donations v. financial scams).  To clarify, I'm certainly not advocating
that we recommend privacy protections for every site that solicits
donations - rather, I'm simply proposing that we refrain from referencing
it as one of the automatically prohibited category of sites, which would
then just comprise of (1) sales and (2) payments.  This would have the
effect of ensuring that we are not preventing *all* sites that receive
donations from having a privacy/proxy service, because I think some
legitimately merit such services (e.g., political blogs that require
donations to stay afloat) while others obviously don't (e.g., charity
scams).  In order to catch the latter sites, I'm proposing we expand the
prohibited actions to include (1) IP infringement, (2) phishing, (3)
malware, and (4) financial scams.

Best,

Andy


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Laura Covington <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>   Certainly willing to hear more from others who may disagree but I think
> text is appropriate as is (sites seeking donations do not get privacy/proxy
> services); I have work experience relating to trying to deal with
> potentially scam fund raisers after 9/11.
>
>
>  Laura Covington
> VP, Intellectual Property Policy
> Yahoo! Inc.
> lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 408.349.5187
>
>   From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:02 PM
> To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Abrams <
> abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert
> Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
>
>    Yes, but that's not entirely Andy's point, Bill.   Andy first
> suggested we allow privacy protections for a website that solicited
> donations.
>
>  Do BC members believe that donation-soliciting sites should be eligible
> for privacy/proxy services?
>
>  As Andy notes, donors are often fooled by sites that pretend to be a
> reputable group helping with an emergency.  The Red Cross/Red Crescent has
> talked about this at ICANN before.  Should we really be recommending that
> ICANN allow privacy/proxy services for any site that solicits donations, as
> opposed to payments for services/goods/ads?
>
>  Please read (and react) to the text proposed for this section (page 2,
> re-attached for your convenience), because the discussion thread sometimes
> tells only half the story…
>
>   From: <Smith>, Bill <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM
> To: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" <
> bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert
> Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
>
>   I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse.
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Andy Abrams" <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   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>
>
>


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