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

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

I would agree.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 4 sept. 2013 à 00:33, "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> I do have concerns about anonomity in funds solicitation sites. 
> 
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:02:27 
> To: <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <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 
> <mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM
> To: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx> >
> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>  list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 
> &#43;1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
> Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 
> (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
>