Re: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support the need for the fee to be cost recovery. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Fares  David <DFares@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:10:08 
To: <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG)
 for directory services (Whois)



Thanks Steve.  I have no objections with the paragraph below.  I would suggest 
that on page 6, if we accept that users should pay a fee for gated access that 
we should qualify that by saying the fee should be limited to cost recovery.  
In fact, I question whether gated access shouldn't be part of the cost of doing 
business for registrars.  I would welcome thoughts from others.  Thanks for all 
of your efforts in coordinating these comments. 
  


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:04 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list
Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for 
directory services (Whois)
Importance: High 
  



This is "Last Call" for members who would object to filing the attached 
comments by tomorrow's deadline. 

  

Since I circulated a draft on Monday, we have seen no objections.  But we did 
see some excellent debate about this paragraph: 

  

Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants 
who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to 
facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights.   And the EWG's 
"Maximum Protected Registration" should only be available to registrants who 
demonstrate a need for privacy to protect at-risk free-speech uses.   

  

Google questioned the idea of per-se restricting donation-seeking domains from 
using privacy/proxy services.  Looks to me like the majority of subsequent 
 comments were in favor of retaining the per-se restriction above.  

  

But as a by-product of that discussion, several of you wanted to add a few more 
offenses to the list of things that privacy/proxy eligible domains would 
promise not to do. So I've revised that first sentence to read: 

  

Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants 
who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to 
facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights, distribution of 
malware, phishing, or other fraud.   

  

Unless more than 5 members object, I will file these comments by 3pm EST on 
Friday 6-Sep. 

  

  

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:45 AM
To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>  list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) 
for directory services (Whois) 

  





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%20>
 )  It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link 
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs%20> ) 

  

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%20>
 ) 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%20>
 ), 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%20>
 ), 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 

  
 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or 
confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its 
attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and 
its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of 
this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business 
of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have 
been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email 
or its attachments are without defect.