Новые правила icann по вхуизгард

получил письмо от неймчип что икан хочет отрубить вхуизгард у коммерческих доменов
кто что слышал?
https://www.respectourprivacy.com/

наверно регистраторы будут на фирму подставную давать регить

Последний раз редактировалось: pipez (22/06/15 в 20:35), всего редактировалось 1 раз

пока в проекте, но если примут эти правила - то может немного дерьма поубавиться, хотя это сомнительно конечно (что поубавиться), тут скорее вопрос как будет определять коммерческую составляющую. на 99% сайтов висит реклама.

pipez писал:

коммерческих доменов

А определение коммерческому домену есть ?

херово если примут.
вопрос не про адалт или "всякое дерьмо", а про просто скрытие сеток он конкурентов и т.п. обычная коммерческая тайна.

так он уже и так платный - какого хера отрубать? на фоне расстрела в сша что ли опять истерия начинается

ХЗ, получил сегодня от регистратора ссулку на эту хрень. Отправил мыло.

Enjoy Bucks писал:

как будет определять коммерческую составляющую

Stek писал:

определение коммерческому домену есть ?

TLD-зона com

S_Flash писал:

ХЗ, получил сегодня от регистратора ссулку на эту хрень. Отправил мыло.

у меня у четырёх регистраторов, никто ниче не прислал

а вообще нездоровая хрень, и так спамят мыла, даже с закрытым хуизом епт, а если по паспорту домены регать - как то совсем "демократичненько" ... если регать на какое то левое ООО, которое будет открыто для этих целей, как предположил ТС, то можно попасть в кучу со всякой чернухой - тоже не выход...

ivango писал:

TLD-зона com

Вообще любой COM домен ? Как то банальненько, зона то давно общего назначения.

Johnbonjov писал:

у меня у четырёх регистраторов, никто ниче не прислал

Мне только наймчип прислал. Может это его личное движение.

Вообще бредово выглядит, нафига этот вхуизпротект отключать, если его сдают по первому требованию. Или теперь будет супер-вхуизпротект, типа старого, но дороже и закрытый в отличии от старого простого.

ну не первое требование- нужен court order

там ссылка на простыню в 98 страниц.
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf
о том какой коммерции запретить хуиз протект, на страницах 15-16 и 47-49
(WG - working group, p/p - privacy and proxy service[хуизпротект])

Цитата:

1.3.3 Specific topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P services, there was disagreement over whether domain names that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited from using P/P services. While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants of such domain names should not be able to use or continue using P/P services. For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit access to P/P services so as to exclude commercial entities, the following text was proposed to clarify and define their position: “domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be in eligible for privacy and proxy registrations.” Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following questions: • Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions be prohibited from using, or continuing to use, P/P services? If so, why, and if not, why not? • Ifyou agree with this position, do you think it would be useful to adopt a definition of “commercial” or “transactional” to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? If so, what should the definition(s) be? • Would it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result of distinguishing between domain names used for online financial transactions and domain names that are not?

Цитата:

CATEGORY C: “Threshold” Question: Currently, proxy/privacy services are available to companies, non-commercial organizations and individuals. Should there be any change to this aspect of the current system in the new accreditation standards? The WG discussed the practical difficulties created by the lack of clear definition as to what is “commercial” and what is “non-commercial”. For instance, a distinction could be made on the basis of the individual or organization having a certain corporate form, or on the basis of the activities/transactions the individual or organization engages in regardless of corporate form. In addition, some commercial entities register and use domain names for non-commercial (e.g. charitable or experimental) purposes. The WG agrees that the status of a registrant as a commercial organization, non-commercial organization, or individual should not be the driving factor in whether P/P services are available to the registrant. Fundamentally, P/P services should remain available to registrants irrespective of their status as commercial or non-commercial organizations or as individuals. However, some WG members are of the view that domain names being actively used for commercial transactions (e.g., the sale or exchange of goods or services) should not be able to use or continue using proxy/privacy services. Accordingly, Charter Question C-1 presented some distinctions that created a division within the WG, and for which public comments are sought by the WG. CATEGORY C QUESTION 1 - Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers distinguish between domain names used for commercial vs. personal purposes? Specifically, is the use of privacy/proxy services appropriate when a domain name is registered for commercial purposes? As noted above, the WG agrees that the mere fact of a domain being registered by a commercial entity, or by anyone conducting commercial activity in other spheres, should not prevent the use of P/P services. In addition, a majority of WG members did not think it either necessary or practical to prohibit domain names being actively used for commercial activity from using P/P services. However, other WG members disagreed, noting that in the “offline world” businesses often are required to register with relevant authorities as well as disclose details about their identities and locations. These members expressed the view that it is both necessary and practical to distinguish between domains used for a commercial purpose (irrespective of whether the registrant is actually registered as a commercial entity anywhere) and those domains (which may be operated by commercial entity) that are used for a non-commercial purpose. Moreover, domains that conduct financial transactions online must have openly available domain registration information for purposes of, for example, consumer self-protection and law enforcement purposes. Accordingly, these members suggested that domains used for online financial transactions with a commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations. Among the arguments in response, some WG members assert that in jurisdictions where similar legal requirements (e.g. business registration, disclosure of location) already exist for the "online world", such disclosures are generally made via a prominent link on the web site rather than in the WHOIS data. This is due apparently to the fact that, in the translation from the "offline world" to the "online world", legislators usually focus on the content available under the domain name, not the domain name registration itself. This view also holds that there may be valid reasons why domain name registrants using their domain names for commercial purposes may legitimately need the availability of such services (forexample, for the exercise of political speech). Question C-1 subparts (a) and (b), which the WG added to focus its discussions, suggest defining “commercial” within the context of specific activities, and uses “trading” as an example. However, the WG discussion has focused on a broad term “commercial” and whether certain types of commercial activity mean that a domain is not eligible for P/P registration. The WG therefore began to use the word“commercial” in a broad sense and the word “transactional” to address issues raised by the position held by the group that supports disallowing domains used for online financial transactions with a commercial purpose from using P/P services. Accordingly, a possible definition of “transactional” was developed for further discussion of this group’s approach, as follows: “[D]omains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.”. CATEGORY C QUESTION 2 - Should the use of privacy/proxy services be restricted only to registrants who are private individuals using the domain name for non-commercial purposes? Given the foregoing discussion, the WG does not believe that P/P registrations should be limited to private individuals who use their domains for non-commercial purposes.

Последний раз редактировалось: loksa (23/06/15 в 00:09), всего редактировалось 1 раз

шо-шо?

в итоге что?
добавят в хуиз поле для чего используется домен или будут использовать инфу из поля Organization? описание то боле мене понятно, но что будет в технической реализации?