ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
  • From: "Chris Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:50:57 -0400

Dear Maria and Members,


One quick word on how these distinctions could be practically and easily


1.      Approaching the OPOC system based on self-declaration (even though
this will generate some measure of abuse), the data would be captured
through an on-line form at the time of registration: 


a.      legal person (company) vs. natural person, and 
b.      commercial vs. non-commercial activity.


2.      If a RNH improperly obtains an OPOC-type registration because it is
either (i) a legal person, or (ii) engaged in commercial activity, there
would be a light-weight procedure so that this OPOC registration could be
challenged.  A third-party could provide reasonable evidence (e.g.  a URL
and screen-shot of the website to which the name resolves) to show that (i)
the website is operated by a legal person (company), or (ii) there is
commercial activity, such as a on-line store.  Thus, the system would be
self-policing and third-parties would submit such challenges only if they
had strong incentive to do so, such as in cases of serious abuse.


3.      Most cases would be easy to decide.  A number of participants have
suggested that these distinctions may be difficult, but my view is that the
difficult cases will be the exception, not the rule.  For instance, one
example raised as difficult is an individual's blog which includes
advertising.  My own view is that advertising is commercial activity because
someone would be receiving payment for that advertising.  Further, the
advertising could be promoting fraudulent activities or generating IP
infringement.  That is why, as a policy matter, data protection does not
extend to cover commercial activities.  However, I understand that a few
members in our sub-group believe that, at least in the Internet context,
these existing rules should be different -- but this would be a significant
departure from existing data protection and privacy norms.


4.      The challenge procedure is being discussed in sub-group A.  The
costs for such a system would not be significant; it would be required
through the contracts that RNH's sign; and the outcome of the procedure
would be that the RNH is placed back in the statis quo "open" Whois.





From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:17 PM
To: Maria Farrell
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C


Maria and all, to be specific:


1. I do not agree with either distinction. I am making that statement for
the record of level of support. My reason is that I feel neither one is
actually enforceable.


2. I do not agree with Chris' and Lynn's changes. I am not suggesting
changes of my own (except for my 3. below), but I believe that the original
report posted by the Chair more accurately reflects the WG's


3. I am not offering examples of how registrars validate the distinctions,
as claimed in the report, because I do not know if any. What I am suggesting
is that if that statement cannot be backed up with fact that it should be
removed from the report. Alternatively, it could be restated with the
appropriate caveat. I suggest that the last two paragraphs of the section on
Natural or Legal Person be revised as follows:


"Some in the sub- group find this distinction operational in the sense that
the distinction is not difficult to make, and will not vary much between
jurisdictions, though forms of legal persons may display such variance. Some
believe it is capable of verification.

It was suggested by some that there should be some sort of verification of
the status declared by the registrar. It was claimed that some registrars do
verify the status, or have implemented some sort of accuracy policy,
although specific examples of such verification were not presented. The
sub-group did not further pursue this issue."


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 30, 2007 10:38 am
To: <gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx>

At this stage we are now working on the second draft of the Chair's report
to the Working Group. 


It is very late in the day to roll back on the last several weeks of this
group's work. That is frustrating for people who have diligently
participated in the calls and provided drafting work. 


At this late stage, we need focused, constructive suggestions for specific
changes to the draft. 


It is not enough to say you disagree with something - we need to hear
specifically what you disagree with (disagreeing with 'making a distinction'
is not very helpful to a report which has two categories of distinction - do
you disagree with either or both?) and how you propose to change the draft
to reflect that.


If there should be examples, then please provide them. Or ask fellow
constituency members for them. 


At this late stage, it appears that the agreements tentatively reached by
this group are unravelling amidst efforts to revisit the discussions in this


Can we please focus on making specific changes to the report that can
factually and realistically attract the agreement of others? 










From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:03 PM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: Goodendorf,Lynn (IHG); Chris Gibson; Maria Farrell;
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 it 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 group.


-------- 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 help achieve
the balance needed to win a broad consensus of support.

Some members have not been as vocal in our discussions and I do not 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 have some
kind of quick informal poll?


-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 attached.



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.


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 chair, Jon

We agreed on this week's call to discuss any further - hopefully minor -
changes to the report using this mailing list rather than on a conference

So please review this draft and circulate any comments on it to this 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 to 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