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

["Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)" <Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>]

I see that Chris Gibson's comments on this are not in this string of
emails so I have copied it below in this message.
I believe he addresses the concerns you have.

Dear Maria and Members,
One quick word on how these distinctions could be practically and easily
enforced.
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: 
legal person (company) vs. natural person, and 
commercial vs. non-commercial activity. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:44 PM
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

A Commercial/Non-commercial declaration is problematic because it
requires an application of the policy to judge intent. A judgement of
intent is a subjective measure that will, almost by definition, impose
undue costs and burdens on a significant portion of the user and supply
community.

I am not familiar with EY privacy legislation, nor that it is a premise
for making a change to ICANN policy. However, I have been lead to
understand that the extension of privacy rights in many countries is
extended on the basis of whether or not the entity in question is a
legal or natural person, and not what their commercial intent is.

Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
> I do agree that web site content and other uses of registered domain 
> names is not the scope of ICANN.
> However, if EU legal privacy protection is the premise for making a 
> policy change in the domain name registration procedures and public 
> access to contact details of the registrants, then we must acknowledge

> that the EU views privacy protection as a human right for individuals 
> and not for businesses.  The self-declaration procedure that has been 
> proposed is not onerous or burdensome.
> 
> The company I work for has had occasion to register domain names in 
> advance of an acquisition or announcing a new brand, such as our most 
> recent one, Hotel Indigo.  So I am very aware of various business 
> requirements in the registration procedure.  I just do not see 
> business or commercial activity as eligible for privacy protection.
> -Lynn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Ross Rader
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:02 PM
> Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
> 
> Registration data is collected when users register domain names. 
> Privacy laws have an impact on how this data is treated. In many 
> respects, current whois policy is inconsistent with privacy 
> legislation, therefore policy must be reviewed and evolved. This is 
> the context, this is why public access to whois data must change.
> 
> How people use and publish web sites, run mail servers, etc. are not 
> issues that ICANN can take up.
> 
> Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
>> My understanding is that the need to comply with privacy laws is the 
>> basis for even considering a policy change.
>> This was supposedly why the current public access to all Whois data 
>> was going to changed.
>> And if we are going to consider privacy laws, they must be viewed in 
>> context.
>> -Lynn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On 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
> 
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> 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?
>>>     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
>> attached.
>>>     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
>> chair,
>>>     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
>> on
>>>     a conference call.
>>>     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
>>
>