<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">Seth, Bill and I were going back and forth discussing the proxy issue and I suggested they write a recommendation from their perspective. I am still not
ready to give up on the best practice recommendation but they are making good points. I do not see it replacing #6 but as an alternative to the best practice recommendation.
<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 think we need to take poll everyone and get an idea where we stand with both recommendations.
<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">And you are up way to early!!!<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>
<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""> rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Emily Taylor<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nettlefold, Peter<br>
<b>Cc:</b> rt4-whois@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Rt4-whois] Ignore my last message Re: 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>