ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

  • To: "Chris Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
  • From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:25:21 -0700

1)yes a use distinction was put to this subgroup and the result is NO:
use should not be a distinction.  This is due to a number of reasons
such as the transient nature of the use and the difficulty in judging
2) Therefore that leaves a distinction based on nature of the
registrant.  I happen to believe that we should not make this
distinction IF the result of the distinction is that legal persons MUST
(sorry for the caps, just trying to emphasize important words, Im not
yelling) be "outed" in the whois, because legal entities have legitimate
reasons to not be "outed", for example, for competitive reasons.  IF the
MUST is a MAY, then I'm OK with having the distinction, but then I don't
see the purpose of it because natural persons can use a proxy service to
protect their privacy, so why have the distinction?
3) yes I agree with your comment below "COULD be made public" not "MUST
be made public"  Very big difference.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Gibson [mailto:cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:01 AM
To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C


I disagree.  The distinction between commercial vs non-commercial is one
that was put directly to this sub-group.  The distinction can be made,
on a self-declaration of the registered name holder (RNH) at the time of
registration.  The consequence is that if the RNH declares that it is
involved in commercial activities, then a more full disclosure of WHOIS
could be made public.  This is consistent with data protection law.  

As for enforcement of this distinction (as well as enforcement of the
distinction between legal vs. natural person), this is being actively
discussed within sub-group A.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx]
Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:50 AM
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

Lynn - ICANN is naturally limited to making policy related to the 
registration of domain names and their function within the DNS. You are 
proposing policy that extends beyond this scope by delving into how 
various forms of content and intent affect consumers and consumer 
behavior. This is naturally the area of government and national law, not

ICANN as a technical coordinator of the domain name system.

You are barking up a tree that the GNSO can't climb.

Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
> I still maintain that the distinction of commercial vs. non-commercial

> is important for data protection of consumers using the Internet.
> Individuals or legal entities who engage in commercial activities 
> normally collect and process personally identifiable data.
> As such, their contact information needs to be publicly available.
> It is contrary to principles of good data privacy practices to exclude

> data protection for this significant group who does not seem to have a

> constituency representative in the current structure.
> -Lynn
> *From:* owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Tim Ruiz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:03 AM
> *To:* Paul Stahura
> *Cc:* Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG); Chris Gibson; Maria Farrell; 
> gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
> Nor do I. The last thing we need are more policies that ICANN not only

> doesn't enforce, but actually can't. And I question the statement that

> some registrars are verifying such a distinction. If so, I would think

> there should be some examples - the specific registrars who are doing
> and how they are doing it.
> Also, I think the changes that Lynn and Chris are suggesting do not 
> accurately represent the level of support and/or agreement of the
> Tim
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
>     From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
>     Date: Wed, May 30, 2007 9:58 am
>     To: "Goodendorf,  Lynn (IHG)" <Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>,  "Chris
>     Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  "Maria Farrell"
>     <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>,  <gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx>
>     I do not believe a distinction should be made.
>     *From:* Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) [mailto:Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:31 AM
>     *To:* Chris Gibson; Maria Farrell; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
>     I would just like to add a comment that I feel these revisions
>     achieve the balance needed to win a broad consensus of support.
>     Some members have not been as vocal in our discussions and I do
>     have a sense of whether the majority of the group is in agreement.
>     Since we did not have a teleconference today, is it possible to
>     some kind of quick informal poll?
>     Regards,
>     -Lynn Goodendorf
>     *From:* Chris Gibson [mailto:cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:12 AM
>     *To:* 'Chris Gibson'; 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Cc:* Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)
>     *Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
>     Sorry for the duplication - this message has the document
>     Chris
>     *From:* owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>     [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Chris Gibson
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:04 AM
>     *To:* 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Cc:* 'Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)'
>     *Subject:* RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
>     Dear All,
>     I have attached the draft final report for sub-group C with some
>     revisions marked in red-line, which Lynn Goodendorf and I propose.

>     We believe these suggested changes are helpful to improve some of
>     the writing, accuracy and balance of the report.
>     Thanks,
>     Chris Gibson
>     *From:* owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>     [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Maria Farrell
>     *Sent:* Friday, May 25, 2007 2:12 PM
>     *To:* gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Subject:* [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
>     Dear all,
>     Attached is the Final Report of Sub Group C, prepared by its
>     Jon Bing.
>     We agreed on this week's call to discuss any further - hopefully
>     minor - changes to the report using this mailing list rather than
>     a conference call.
>     So please review this draft and circulate any comments on it to
>     list. Please do use 'track changes' mode if you suggest changes to
>     the document.
>     We should expect to finalise this report next week and submit it
>     the Working Group. I will also be adding some basic information to
>     it about membership of the group and attendance.  
>     All the best, Maria

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy