<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:530722583;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1649738692 201916417 201916419 201916421 201916417 201916419 201916421 201916417 201916419 201916421;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:38.5pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks Emily, that’s very useful, and I think I understand where its coming from.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have a few follow on questions, as I’m trying to understand the big picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I’m a bit nervous about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That said, I’m not opposed, just cautious.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our ‘privacy’ recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three different arrangements: i.e. privacy, ‘known’ proxies, and ‘unknown’ proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment of parallel ‘known proxy’ and ‘privacy’ regimes, we would need to clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address some of my concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a registrant’s identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead that we would argue that:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:38.5pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue to the registered name holder; and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:38.5pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>ICANN should endorse and regulate ‘privacy’ services which could limit the availability of <u>sensitive</u> personal data, without completely obfuscating the registrant’s identity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the chain of contractual rights and responsibilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler alternative?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I hope I’m not making this unnecessarily complicated – I just want to make sure that we don’t make a rushed change that has not been fully discussed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nettlefold, Peter<br><b>Cc:</b> Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Hi Peter<br><br>As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days.<br><br>My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic.<br><br>What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations.<br><br>I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up.<br><br>Thanks<br><br>Emily<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter <<a href="mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au">Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Susan and all,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I’m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ‘proxy’ is being used) then some special rules apply? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ‘known’ proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I’m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I’m just trying to understand the position.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>As there isn’t a recording up yet that I’ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Susan Kawaguchi<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org" target="_blank">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>Hello All, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy’s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US>Susan </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p><br><b>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</b><br>NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) <br>and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized <br>review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the <br>intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all <br>copies of the original message. <br><br>This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. <br>MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit <a href="http://www.axway.com" target="_blank">www.axway.com</a>.<br><br><b>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Rt4-whois mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br clear=all><br>-- <br><br><br> <span style='border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm'><img border=0 width=100 height=100 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:~WRD298.jpg" alt="Image removed by sender."></span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='margin-left:40.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:#CC33CC'> </span></u><span style='color:#993399'><br></span><br><span style='color:#999999'>76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK<br>t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<br><a href="mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu" target="_blank">emily@emilytaylor.eu</a> <br><br><b><a href="http://www.etlaw.co.uk" target="_blank">www.etlaw.co.uk</a></b><br><br>Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div>
<P><br/><B>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</B><br/>
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) <br/> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized <br/> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the <br/> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all <br/> copies of the original message. <br/><br/>This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. <br/>MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.<br/>
<br/><B>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</B><br/>
</P></body></html>