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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support expanding the clause as well to include malware, phishing, etc. 

From: bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: abrams@xxxxxxxxxx
CC: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert 
Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:19:36 +0000






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)
  It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link)



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) 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), 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), 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