RE: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Tony

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: 20 June 2014 19:29
To: Christian Dawson
Cc: Osvaldo Novoa; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call

 

Thanks Christian,

 

I support this. Categorization of content related issues is not in scope.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From: Christian Dawson <mailto:dawson@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:23 PM

To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

Cc: Osvaldo Novoa <mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx 

Subject: Re: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call

 

Wolf-Ulrich and other ISPCP colleagues,

 

I'm also on this committee, and can definitely report that there remain some
contentious issues surrounding this subject. In particular, if you review
the document, issues surrounding the 'Threshold question' are very much
unresolved. A minority of Working Group members want to make it so that
commercial businesses cannot use privacy & proxy services. 

 

If a threshold was set that required commercial entities to not use privacy
services, I'm not certain how registrars would track which domains are
commercial and which ones aren't. I, for one, feel that it's a bad idea to
force registrars to categorize registrants based on the expectations of the
content that the registrants report will be associated with the domains.

 

Having registrants categorize their planned usage seems to be a prerequisite
for any sort of threshold you would set to qualify for privacy and proxy
services. I don't think we would allow ISPs to be forced to ask their
customers to categorize their usage type - so I personally think it would be
unfair for us to ask registrars to do so. That's only one argument of many I
could make against the idea of a threshold for privacy & proxy.  

 

I request that we at least consider responding to Questions C-1 and C-2 in
this document to state that we don't support a threshold for privacy &
proxy. 

 

-Christian

 

 

 

On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





Hi Osvaldo,

 

is there any contentious item where the WG not yet came to an unanimous
recommendation? Otherwise I would say ? if full community (SG)
representation is ensured in the group membership: keep going!

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From: Novoa, Osvaldo <mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:54 PM

To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx 

Subject: [ispcp] RV: Agenda for 17 June WG call

 

Dear All,

I am enclosing a document with the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation
Issues PDP Working Group preliminary conclusions as well as some questions
to be posed to the community at the London meeting, based on the
deliberations within the group.

I would appreciate your comments.

Best regards,

 

 

Osvaldo Novoa 

Subgerente General

Antel

Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22

Montevideo, 11800

Uruguay

Tel.  +598 2928 6400

Fax. +598 2928 6401

 

 

 

  _____  

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido
únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser
confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al
remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el
e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está
prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por
cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del
mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier
comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de
Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for
the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender
immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached
files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity
that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not
responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information
Security Policy.