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

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

My concern is that names claiming to be bona fide donation sites, but are in 
actual fact being scam sites, would then be able to hide behind a proxy Whois 
service and attempt to deceive users.

Hope that helps,

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 01:05, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> I'm not sure I understand what the concerns might be. Is it that a name used 
> to solicit donations can be protected by privacy/proxy or that it can not.
> 
> I'm in favor of such names being afforded privacy/proxy protection with the 
> proviso that such protection, and perhaps use of the name itself, is subject 
> to to non-abusive use and rapid action in the case of abuse.
> 
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:00 PM, "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx" <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 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>
>>> 
>>