[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Comments about the Subgroup Report of Privacy/Proxy Services

[Carlton Samuels]

Hi Lili:
See my comments in line.


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:21 PM, SUN Lili <L.SUN at interpol.int> wrote:

> Dear Privacy & Proxy subgroup members,
>
>
>
> I went through the draft report of this subgroup on wiki page (
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604717) and
> step in with my concerns:
>
>
>
> 1.       To the Data Accuracy subgroup, the Whois accuracy of domain
> names that utilize Privacy and Proxy Services is invisible. And Volker also
> mentioned that this will be dealt with in the Privacy & Proxy subgroup.
>
​Under current rules, the accredited P/P provider is obliged to ensure
contactability of customer of his service​. That this is the case cannot be
verified independently and some of us have argued from inception this is a
major hole in the agreement. We have alternately argued that there should
be graded penalties for this violation after the fact.

> As such, I strongly support Susan’s comments on “6 Conducting periodic due
> diligence checks on customer contact information” and “8 Providing clear
> and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered
> name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy
> environment.” There is no reason for a customer who chose P/P service thus
> been protected from responsibilities.
>
​See above. We expect that the risk triage will allow the cost of violation
to pass to the customer.​


>
>
> 2.       There is no indication about the legacy domain names that
> utilize P/P Services before the provider been accredited. Will it be a
> similar situation as Grandfathered domains?
>
​Some of us have argued that there should be a Privacy/Proxy Data Accuracy
Reminder policy along the line of the WHOIS Data reminder. It was not
accepted. But there is no reason the P/P provider cannot be obliged and
bound to it in terms of the accreditation for renewals. ​


>
>
> 3.       Like the example I gave during the 2nd F2F meeting, if there is
> not enough regulation and overseeing in place, P/P service is very likely
> to be abused. To be clear, I elaborated the example in a word document (see
> attached). Do we really need this kind of fake prosperity of domain
> industry?
>
>
>
> A response from this subgroup is much appreciated.
>
>
>
​Best,
-Carlton​


> Thanks,
>
> Lili
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************
> ***************************************
> This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject
> of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice
> purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The
> information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party
> without the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is
> necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to
> be used. All practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure
> that information is protected against unauthorised access or processing.
> INTERPOL reserves the right to enquire about the use of the information
> provided.
> If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
> this message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it,
> make any use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and
> delete the message from any computer.
> ************************************************************
> *************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20180606/63195778/attachment.html>