<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:"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:0in;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>yes, but now it’s my time to leave – please carry on and improve in my absence<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'>Seth<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 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nettlefold, Peter<br><b>Cc:</b> seth.reiss@lex-ip.com; bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; rt4-whois@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Ignore my last message Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language [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 <br><br>I've now read the e-mail thread, and understand what we're doing. Substituting for 6, in order to prevent internal contradictions, yes?<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 1 December 2011 03:33, Nettlefold, Peter <<a href="mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au">Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED<br><br>Hi Seth,<br><br>Thanks very much for taking the pen on this difficult issue.<br><br>>From my perspective, this is a very good attempt to articulate findings and recommendations, and I am happy to work with this position.<br><br>I will wait to hear from others before diving into detail too much, to get a sense if this is an approach we can work with.<br><br>Thanks again.<br><br>Peter<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: Seth M Reiss [mailto:<a href="mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com">seth.reiss@lex-ip.com</a>]<br>Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:26 PM<br>To: 'Smith, Bill' <<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br><br>mmm, didn't really want that kind of pressure.<br><br>Here's an attempt:<br><br>Data Access- Proxy Service<br><br>1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which<br>the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the<br>agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and<br>assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use.<br>2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a<br>proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in<br>ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain<br>name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain<br>name.<br>2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which<br>tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA<br>provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has<br>been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability<br>for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or<br>amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy<br>services to escape liability.<br>3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons<br>for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a<br>valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services<br>should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are<br>designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The<br>legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread.<br>4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities<br>for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will<br>take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its<br>customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused<br>and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be<br>available.<br><br>I suspect most of you are asleep by now anyway. If not, feel free to<br>comment or modify or supplement, or in the morning.<br><br>Seth<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Smith, Bill [mailto:<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>]<br>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:34 PM<br>To: Seth M Reiss<br>Cc: Kathy Kleiman; <a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>; Susan Kawaguchi<br>Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br><br>Seth,<br><br>Any chance you cold take a crack at this? Your writing on the subject seems<br>on point and I suspect you could say it using fewer words than I.<br><br>Bill<br><br>On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:27 PM, "Susan Kawaguchi" <<a href="mailto:susank@fb.com">susank@fb.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Hi Bill,<br>><br>> This is a valuable (albeit frustrating) discussion and necessary to make<br>sure we get this right, I appreciate the argument. I think we all want the<br>end result but it is getting to that point that may be painful but we knew<br>this task could be painful when we signed on.<br>><br>> Is there a stronger recommendation that you and Seth could draft that<br>outlines your view point?<br>><br>> This is all that we said in the recommendations in Dakar<br>><br>> "Remove proxy services from the RAA since the proxy, as an agent, is the<br>registrant. Expand and ? affirmative sentence"<br>><br>> I cannot live with that what would you propose to strengthen the<br>recommendation?<br>><br>> At this point, I am not willing to walk away from the best practices<br>recommendation but I am very willing to continue the discussion and see if<br>there is a way forward on a recommendation we all agree to.<br>><br>> I am going to eat dinner and walk the dog so will be offline for an hour.<br>><br>> Susan<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Smith, Bill [mailto:<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>]<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:19 PM<br>> To: Susan Kawaguchi<br>> Cc: Seth M Reiss; Kathy Kleiman; <a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br>><br>> Susan,<br>><br>> It may not seem like it but I am supportive, very supportive of your<br>position of to not rely on litigation to solve these types of problems.<br>Where we disagree is the best approach to avoid the litigation.<br>><br>> I am not suggesting that cigarette-style litigation is the way forward.<br>Rather, I am concerned that proposal for retail proxy indemnification (if<br>I've read it right) will result in exactly that situation, some time far in<br>the future when society and the courts finally realize that allowing<br>unfettered criminal activity on the Internet is a bad idea. Retail proxies<br>will happily sell a service to people they don't know as long as they have<br>no liability.<br>><br>> If instead of no liability, we insist that they have the liability of the<br>Registrant, since that's what they are, I strongly suspect that counsel for<br>these services will understand that they now carry at least some risk in<br>these transactions. Consequently, they will either recommend against them or<br>insist on some mechanism to mitigate the risk, through insurance or other<br>mechanisms - perhaps even actually knowing something about their customers.<br>Any or all of these would involve higher costs hence higher prices making<br>these services less attractive to criminals, etc.<br>><br>> By the addition of SLAs into contracts, and mandatory consequences, we<br>provide a means for ICANN to ensure that valid queries, information<br>requests, corrections, etc. are made in a timely manner. A registrant could<br>ignore a request knowing that the specific penalty for failing to comply<br>with such request. With mandatory revocation the consequence of last resort,<br>we give the community and ICANN the ability to revoke a name (the only thing<br>of value under our control).<br>><br>> If a proxy is a party to any of these transactions, they act as the<br>Registrant and must respond either directly or with guidance from the<br>licensee per the agreement SLAs. Failure to do so results in the same<br>consequences.<br>><br>> By setting SLAs and consequences appropriately, ICANN can influence the<br>behavior of Registrants and those that act as proxies for them.<br>><br>> Even if we go with language you an James worked on, and I realize that you<br>put in a great deal of effort on that, we'll still need something like what<br>I have outlined because as we discussed in Dakar, anyone can act as a proxy<br>for a Registrant no matter what ICANN tries to do to prevent it. If the<br>"best practices" ICANN develops for the retail trade prove too onerous,<br>proxy providers will simply step outside of the ICANN tent and provide their<br>services likely failing to adhere to the best practices.<br>><br>> I hope this makes sense.<br>><br>> Bill<br>><br>><br>> On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:<br>><br>> HI Bill,<br>><br>> Thank you for your thoughts I think your statement below is my biggest<br>pain point.<br>><br>> "I think they are inherently contradictory. How a service is *sold* should<br>not determine liability. If this were the case and we applied the proposed<br>definitions to consumer products, untold numbers of tort cases would be<br>summarily thrown out. Cigarette, toy, and asbestos manufacturers could<br>properly claim, "I don't know the buyer therefor I have no liability"."<br>><br>> All of the cases you mention above relied on litigation to clarify the<br>existence of liability and impose that liability on the manufacturer. It<br>would be overwhelming and burdensome to rely on litigation to fix this<br>problem especially when it involves global entities as proxy service<br>providers. I think we have the opportunity to incentivize the registrars to<br>help with the problem.<br>><br>> If I or LE are forced to rely on litigation of any sort of court order to<br>get information on the licensee of a domain name to pursue a provider of<br>counterfeit drugs, for example, this would take years for each domain name<br>involved.<br>><br>> If we take a very extreme step and recommend that proxy services are not<br>allowed in the gTlds (as .US has done) how would that ever be enforced?<br>Proxy registrations provide a vital service for many in the domain name<br>space.<br>><br>> Susan<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Smith, Bill [mailto:<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>]<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:20 PM<br>> To: Seth M Reiss<br>> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; Kathy Kleiman;<br><a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br>><br>> See below:<br>><br>> On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:03 PM, "Seth M Reiss"<br><<a href="mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com">seth.reiss@lex-ip.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com">seth.reiss@lex-ip.com</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:seth.reiss@lex-i">seth.reiss@lex-i</a><br><a href="http://p.com" target="_blank">p.com</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> I am not advocating ignoring proxy services simply clarifying their role<br>and liability as registrant. I suspect we are very closely aligned<br>regarding outcome, just not how to reach there.<br>><br>> I guess I'm advocating that we get as close to ignoring them as we can.<br>Recognizing them, even in the limited way the current RAA does gave the<br>Ninth Circuit everything it need to make its liability absolving decision.<br>><br>> While the community may not be inclined to receive a proposal to "ignore<br>proxy services" with open arms, I hope they would consider it if we present<br>it as in the public interest.<br>><br>><br>> I think we disagree regarding whether we need to tolerate an industry<br>simply because it exists and has for a time. ICANN did not tolerate domain<br>name tasting, although it acted relatively quickly there and has not here.<br>><br>> I believe it to be a dangerous proposition to say that we need to<br>accommodate existing practices simply because ICANN has allowed them to<br>exist for a period of time, although I think it's an unfortunately<br>circumstance. If you apply this line of reasoning broadly, you effectively<br>allow the industry to restrict what ICANN can and cannot do.<br>><br>> If we make this assumption generally, our report would be very short. Yes<br>there are problems with WHOIS. However, it has existed in this manner for<br>too long and therefor it cannot be changed.<br>><br>><br>> I would like to find a middle ground. I am not one for asking people to<br>think differently. I just don't see how holding stating a proxy should be<br>held fully responsible, and then at the same time having retail proxy<br>services definitions and a voluntary best practices policy, will not be<br>viewed as inherently contradictory.<br>><br>> I think they are inherently contradictory. How a service is *sold* should<br>not determine liability. If this were the case and we applied the proposed<br>definitions to consumer products, untold numbers of tort cases would be<br>summarily thrown out. Cigarette, toy, and asbestos manufacturers could<br>properly claim, "I don't know the buyer therefor I have no liability".<br>><br>> Other than to satisfy, the current purveyors of these fine services, I<br>can't see any reason to develop a complex set of definitions and liability<br>flows. Together these give attorneys and courts ample room to for truck<br>driving.<br>><br>><br>> Seth<br>><br>><br>> From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:<a href="mailto:susank@fb.com">susank@fb.com</a>]<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:29 PM<br>> To: Kathy Kleiman; Seth M Reiss<br>> Cc:<br><a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><br>> Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br>><br>> HI Seth,<br>><br>> I am going to respond to you out of order<br>> In all our discussions, I have still not heard a persuasive argument why a<br>proxy service industry that can shield itself from liability is necessary or<br>good or appropriate. I agree with you but it is what is. The situation<br>arose over 10 years ago and I do not think that advocating to do away with<br>proxy services is going to be well received by the ICANN community. Also<br>to date, there has been very few examples of a proxy service being held<br>liable.<br>><br>> We need proxy services but we need responsive proxy services many of the<br>providers are acting responsibly it is the bad actors that I would like to<br>change their behavior.<br>><br>> Once you introduce definitions concerning affiliates, retail services and<br>different flavors of proxy services, the cheap ones with flimsy<br>relationships, and the expensive ones with fiduciary type relationships, it<br>will appear to the court that you do not really mean what you saying in<br>bullet number 6. This will confuse the courts (and the public) and the<br>registrant proxy services is more likely to be able to weasel out of being<br>held liable.<br>><br>> I am not sure that these definitions would be accepted outside of ICANN<br>and at least we would have a clearer picture of who we are dealing with.<br>><br>> I am not convinced at all that just removing the language from the RAA<br>would impact the practices of the current proxy services. If you have<br>another argument let me know I am open to rethinking this but I am not open<br>to ignoring proxy service providers.<br>><br>> Susan<br>><br>> From:<br><a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-w">rt4-w</a><br><a href="mailto:hois-bounces@icann.org">hois-bounces@icann.org</a>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>Kathy Kleiman<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:15 PM<br>> To: Seth M Reiss<br>> Cc:<br><a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br>><br>> Great comments, Seth. I defer to Susan and James, as the experts on this<br>material.<br>> Best,<br>> Kathy<br>><br>> :<br>> Thank you Kathy for breaking this out. I have not been good about<br>reviewing the entire document.<br>><br>> To respond to Peter's question about what would be legally enforceable, I<br>think if you look at bullet number 6, if this bullet was implemented in a<br>very clear and unambiguous way, by itself and without some of the other<br>material being proposal, then I think there would be reasonable expectation<br>that national courts would hold the registrant proxy service fully<br>responsible for harm caused by a website hosted at the domain name at issue.<br>In other words, the Ninth Circuit decision that Susan highlighted would have<br>been decided differently.<br>><br>> Once you introduce definitions concerning affiliates, retail services and<br>different flavors of proxy services, the cheap ones with flimsy<br>relationships, and the expensive ones with fiduciary type relationships, it<br>will appear to the court that you do not really mean what you saying in<br>bullet number 6. This will confuse the courts (and the public) and the<br>registrant proxy services is more likely to be able to weasel out of being<br>held liable.<br>><br>> The current proposal on the table suggests to me a somewhat more<br>complicated model whereby the registrant proxy service is fully liable for<br>the use of the domain name but can shield that liability by adopted and<br>fully complying the a specific set of reveal and relay processes etc. I<br>voluntary set of best practices would not do this, but a mandatory set of<br>provisions to qualify a proxy service for a "safe harbor" would. Such a<br>safe hard model would in my view be more difficult to implement and is<br>likely to give rise to a certain amount of uncertainty and inconsistent<br>outcomes even if prudently implemented. But this also assumes that we need<br>to have a proxy service in which proxies may shield themselves from<br>liability. In all our discussions, I have still not heard a persuasive<br>argument why a proxy service industry that can shield itself from liability<br>is necessary or good or appropriate.<br>><br>> Seth<br>><br>><br>> From:<br><a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-w">rt4-w</a><br><a href="mailto:hois-bounces@icann.org">hois-bounces@icann.org</a>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>Kathy Kleiman<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 PM<br>> To:<br><a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><br>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language<br>><br>> Hi All,<br>> I feel like I am sending altogether too many emails today. Sorry :-)!<br>Anyway, here's one more. I worked with James, a little, and Susan, more, on<br>streamlining the Proxy recommendations to look, sound and flow like the<br>Privacy recommendations. Of course, proxy is voluntary, and privacy is a<br>requirement, but the rest is fairly close.<br>><br>> They are below and attached. If you like them, we'll send them on to Alice<br>for inclusion. Note: the definitions went into a footnote which should be<br>easy to see as it will be quite extensive.<br>><br>> here's the text:<br>><br>> Data Access- Proxy Service<br>><br>> 1. ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by<br>reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion which sets out<br>current processes followed by proxy service providers.<br>><br>> 2. Registrars should be required to disclosure their relationship<br>with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider to ICANN.<br>><br>> 3. ICANN should develop and manage a set of voluntary best practice<br>guidelines for appropriate proxy services [footnote 1] consistent with<br>national laws. These voluntary guidelines should strike an appropriate<br>balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests. At a<br>minimum this would include privacy, law enforcement and the industry around<br>law enforcement.<br>><br>> Such voluntary guidelines may include:<br>><br>> + Proxy services provide full contact details as required by the Whois<br>><br>> + Publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and<br>relaying information<br>><br>> + Standardization of reveal and relay processes and timeframes, consistent<br>with national laws<br>><br>> + Maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service<br>provider<br>><br>> + Due diligence checks on licensee contact information.<br>><br>> 5. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the<br>retail service providers that adopt the best practices.<br>><br>> 6. For the avoidance of doubt, the WHOIS Policy, referred to in<br>Recommendation 1 above, should include an affirmative statement that<br>clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is<br>acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the<br>agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain<br>name and its manner of use.<br>><br>> Footnote 1 (all the remaining text)<br>> As guidance to the Community and as useful background for the Proxy<br>Service Recommendations, the Review Team provides its working definitions of<br>proxy service and different types of proxy service providers:<br>><br>> - Proxy Service - a relationship in which the registrant is acting on<br>behalf of another The WHOIS data is that of the agent and the agent alone<br>obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and<br>its manner of use. [KK: is this the definition we are using in other places<br>in the Report?]<br>><br>> - Affiliated Registrar - another ICANN accredited registrar that operates<br>under a common controlling interest (2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement,<br>Section 1.20)<br>><br>> - Affiliate retail proxy service provider - entity operating under a<br>common controlling interest of a registrar.<br>><br>> - Retail proxy service provider - proxy service with little or no<br>knowledge of the entity or individual requesting the service beyond their<br>ability to pay and their agreement to the general terms and conditions.<br>><br>> - Limited proxy service provider - proxy service for an entity or<br>individual in which there is an ongoing business relationship bound by a<br>contract that is specific to the relationship.<br>><br>><br>> --- end<br>> same text attached<br>> Kathy<br>><br>><br>> --<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Rt4-whois mailing list<br>><br><a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><mailto:<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><br>><br><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><br><br><br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><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><br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><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> <img border=0 id="_x0000_i1025" src="http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif"><o:p></o:p></p><div style='margin-left:60.0pt'><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></body></html>