Re: clarifying distinctions on ISSUE-24 (security/fraud)

Answers below,

On Jul 16, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Nicholas Doty <> wrote:

> Hi John and Roy,
> I just wanted to clarify some distinctions for your change proposal on security/fraud permitted use:
> One key difference is certainly adding the definition of graduated response and stating that it is preferred. There are a couple of other distinctions from the Editors' Draft text, and I wasn't sure how essential they are to the proposal. (If we can consolidate proposals, that will make the groups' decision-making easier.)

Adding graduated response language is essential from my view.
> 1. To the extent reasonably necessary vs. to the extent proportionate and reasonably necessary:
> I believe the "proportionate" language came out of some concerns from our EU colleagues. Would you agree with including proportionate as well? In that case, I think the graduated-response-is-preferred language would explain the concept nicely.

I have no problem with proportionate.
> 2. "malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity" vs. "security risks and fraudulent or malicious activity"
> Is deceptive necessary here? Would deceptive include use of anonymizing proxies, onion routing, or other network-related privacy measures? Or is it just aimed at malicious deception (like fraudulent automated impressions, say)?

I would mean it NOT to include anonymizing proxies, etc.  Just malicious deception.  I think I'm comfortable with "security risks and fraudulent or malicious activity."

> Thanks,
> Nick
> Re:

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 23:21:47 UTC