Here's our position as Sitetruth.com:

We at Sitetruth.com operate a system which attempts to evaluate the legitimacy of the business behind business web sites. We do this by attempting to link the web site to a real-world business, then obtaining business background information from commercial sources. We thus have an interest in correct ownership data for web sites being easily available.

ICANN proposes that "Domain name registrations involving P/P service providers should be clearly labelled as such in WHOIS." We agree, and add that the "clear labeling" should be easily machine-parsable. We would consider this a negative indicator when evaluating business legitimacy.

As for the questions presented for public comment:

Q: "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?"

A: Yes. In many jurisdictions, a business must disclose the actual name and address of the business behind a web site, or be guilty of a criminal offense. See California Business and Professions Code section 17538, which reads:

"Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication ... the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted." Also see The European Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), which is even broader:

... Member States shall ensure that the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information:

(a) the name of the service provider;
(b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established;
(c) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner;
(d) where the service provider is registered in a trade or similar public register, the trade register in which the service provider is entered and his registration number, or equivalent means of identification in that register;
(e) where the activity is subject to an authorisation scheme, the particulars of the relevant supervisory authority"

The European Union's position is quite clear. While individuals have privacy rights under the European Privacy Directive, businesses do not. Online businesses are subject to stringent disclosure requirements. ICANN should follow that model.

Q: "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?

A: The definition of "commercial" should be that used in the European Directive on Electronic Commerce. That definition works for the EU. Any site which accepts payments, offers items for sale, or engages in transactions of value should be considered commercial. Whether advertising-supported sites should be considered commercial remains an open question.

Q: "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?"

A: For a domain identified as "commercial" per the previous criteria, the information listed as required by the European Directive on Electronic Commerce should be publicly available.

John Nagle
Sitetruth.com