<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Susan<div><br></div><div>I am coming around to Susan's way of thinking. Either you are an accredited privacy/proxy service provider or you ARE the registrant and your Whois details are provided to the registrar - and publicly available. Or you can have your details handled by an accredited p/p provider - with the whois information handled according to ICANN rules.</div><div><br></div><div>For lawyers - that means that if the Whois information they provide is their own, then they are responsible (and as agents for their clients, they should be anyway), so if their clients misbehave in some way, it is the lawyers who are responsible for that misbehaviour. (client confidentiality can be a two-edged sword!) Otherwise, as you point out, they can adhere to the requirements of being an accredited proxy service provider to escape ultimate liability for the misbehaviour of their clients.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise, I share James’ fear of going back to an unregulated market where the miscreants can hide and noone is responsible.</div><div><br></div><div>Holly</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 17 Nov 2015, at 4:34 am, Susan Kawaguchi <<a href="mailto:susank@fb.com">susank@fb.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Hello All, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have given more thought about the discussion concerning accredited proxy vendors versus all other unaccredited proxy vendors, including lawyers. It seems to me that we are never going to be able to capture each variation of the unaccredited proxy
vendor and James brought up a point that I think we should consider. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If accredited proxy vendors adhere to all the requirements we are describing they will have the benefit of not being considered the registrant of the domain name. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any other type of unaccredited proxy service should simply not exist and they should always be considered the registrant with all the rights and liabilities that go along with being the registrant. We simply would not recognize any other existing relationship.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We could make this very clear Accredited proxy or registrant and not delve into all the grey areas. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The unaccredited proxy provider would be considered the Registrant in all actions including the URS and UDRP. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am hoping we can discuss further on the call tomorrow. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Susan Kawaguchi</div>
<div>Facebook, Inc. </div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>