<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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)">
<title>RE: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</title>
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
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;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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">I am going into a meeting right now for the next 3 hours and will not be able to communicate except occasionally on my iphone. I am fine your with additional
language Seth. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Unfortunately, Facebook is demanding my attention to other issues….<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>
<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""> Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Susan Kawaguchi; 'Smith, Bill'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> rt4-whois@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Very good Susan. See my slight tweaks below:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Susan Kawaguchi [<a href="mailto:susank@fb.com">mailto:susank@fb.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:25 AM<br>
To: Seth M Reiss; 'Smith, Bill'<br>
Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org<br>
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Not everyone on the team has chimed in yet on this issue today but according to my count the following are agreeing to Lynn's proposal agreeing # 2 in Emily's email this morning.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Lynn</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Omar </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Michael</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">James</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Kathy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Susan</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Those who have not weighed in today</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Emily</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Lutz - although liked Seth's proposal last night</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Sarmad</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Wilfried</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Sharon </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Peter - but earlier this morning did sound like he was probably favoring Seth's language.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">(if I have characterized this incorrectly for anyone please accept my apologies and please weigh in)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I would recommend that we leave both the Dakar recommendation in and the best practices recommendation in ( I do not feel they are mutually exclusive)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">We could lead into the two recommendations with the following:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Review Team members are in unanimous agreement that the status quo regarding proxy registrations is not sustainable, is not fair to legitimate participants in the domain name marketplace, frustrates valuable social goals
such as law enforcement</span><s> </s><s><span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#C0504D">[</span></s><span style="font-family:Consolas">and the protection of intellectual property<s><span style="color:#C0504D">]</span></s>, and reflects poorly on ICANN's
commitment to serve the public interest. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">We are also in agreement that the goal should be to give accredited registrars strong incentives not to foster this undesirable status quo, and that such incentives should arise both from the terms of the ICANN contracts
with registrars, and from principles of legal responsibility under national law. ICANN can control the first source of these incentives; its contractual provisions may influence, but cannot control, the second, since neither of the parties most directly involved
-- the proxy service customers, and the law enforcement or other party seeking to identify them and hold them accountable -- is under contract to ICANN.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">We have not reached consensus on how best to advance this common goal. Some believe that the best approach is to start with the proxy services that are made available in connection with domain name registration, and require
these services to follow best practices for promptly disclosing the identity of the party actually in control of the domain name, with registrars facing consequences if they do business with services that do not fulfill best practices. Others prefer the approach
of denying any recognition of proxy services in ICANN contracts, and treating all such services simply as registrants, regardless of their practices<span style="color:#C0504D">, with the view that every registrant, including proxy service registrants,</span></span>
<span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#C0504D">should</span> <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#C0504D">
accept full responsibility</span> <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#C0504D">
for the manner of use of the domain name</span> <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#C0504D">
they register.</span><span style="font-family:Consolas"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">We set forth below alternative recommendations reflecting these dual approaches, and solicit community comment on them.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">One other area of agreement is that neither approach will be successful without proactive ICANN compliance measures, either to police observance of best practices, in the first approach, or to press registrars to cancel
registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual obligations as set forth in the RAA. A well resourced and credible compliance program is essential to reforming the unacceptable status quo in this area.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">-----Original Message-----</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">From: Seth M Reiss [<a href="mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com">mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com</a>]
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:52 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">To: Susan Kawaguchi; 'Smith, Bill'</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">OK, guys, I finally woke up. But now I kind of wish I had not!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I am not entirely comfortable with what I wrote (option 3). I continue to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">agree with Bill's analysis and thinking, but I am also concerned that the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">statements I wrote go well beyond what our Team was tasked to do. It goes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">beyond WHOIS accuracy into the realm of security etc. But so does James'</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">and Susan's proposal (option 2).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">The Dakar statement (option 1 as most recently modified by Emily) comes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">closest to us staying within our purview.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Note that Susan agrees that language should be removed from the RRA and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proxy service provider should be responsible for the domain name. So</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">perhaps this could a bullet point under Dakar.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Or better yet, how about this to make the group happy, or at least happier.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">How about the Dakar statement as most recently modified by Emily go into the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">recommendations. Everything else, some of proposal 2 and maybe a bit of</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proposal 3, or perhaps just the statement Susan made about language being</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">removed from the RAA, go into the discussion. I agree with Bill that a</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">voluntary set of best practices cannot reach the goal of eliminating</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">irresponsible proxy services. But the discussion section could indicate this</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">was one of the ideas that was considered by our team as a possible solution</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">and that is something that the community may wish to follow up on.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Finally, regarding the DMCA, the United States Congress, in its wisdom,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">decided that web hosts and neutral bill boards and the like should be given</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">a level of immunity to function and so adopted the DMCA and other measure to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">provide safe havens from copyright infringement claims and other claims for</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">content posted by others if they registered as an agent and carefully</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">followed a number of specific take down/put up practices. The process is</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">mandatory, carefully detailed and all governed by a centralized law that is</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">consistent across the national territory. We, unfortunately, do not operate</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">in a landscape of consistent laws, plus we are not a legislature, plus (as</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Bill has reiterated on several occasions) a voluntary practice will not get</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">us there.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Seth </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">-----Original Message-----</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [<a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a>] On</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:11 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">To: Smith, Bill</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Yes I agree a registrant is a contracted party I guess I am use to seeing so</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">much bad behavior by registrants that I do not think of them that way.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I still do not see our two recommendations as polar opposites.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I agree the language in the RAA should be removed and the proxy service</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">provider should be responsible for the domain name.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">But that does not exclude the need for best practices in this industry and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">if we can get movement in the right direction along with calling for the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proxy service providers to be responsible it is a win win situation.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">(I am not comparing the DMCA to this situation but I think this is a good</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">example)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">When the DMCA was put into US law it required interpretation and best</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">practices were developed over a period of time. In my opinion eBay took the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">lead and put in place the VeRO program which went beyond some of the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">requirements. Many other companies followed their lead and you will see</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">pieces of the VeRO program in many companies processes.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I think several registrars have taken a similar path with their affiliate</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proxy services and established procedures that are good.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Why can't we advocate for both positions? </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I think we are in agreement that neither approach will be successful without</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proactive ICANN compliance measures, either to police observance of best</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">practices, in the first approach, or to press registrars to cancel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">registrations of proxy services that do not fulfill their contractual</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">obligations as set forth in the RAA. A well resourced and credible</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">compliance program is essential to reforming the unacceptable status quo in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">this area. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">-----Original Message-----</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">From: Smith, Bill [<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>]
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:46 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">To: Susan Kawaguchi</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Cc: James M. Bladel; rt4-whois@icann.org</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Susan,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Isn't everyone a contracted party in this ecosystem? Registrars and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Registries with ICANN and Registrants with Registrants (with required terms</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">from ICANN).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I believe we need SLAs in each of the agreements that put some teeth into</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">the compliance provisions. For example, the current RAA language says that</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">failure to correct WHOIS data *may* result in revocation of the Domain Name</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">(or something similar to that).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Action is voluntary on the part of the Registrant and Registrar with the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">public paying the cost, much like with toxic waste. This isn't a direct cost</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">but indirect, and getting larger all the time. I sincerely doubt that a</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">voluntary code, though admirable, will mitigate these costs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">If we have SLAs in each of the agreements, then failure by any party to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">abide by them results in action and/or penalties up to and including loss of</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">name. The current system doesn't, while threatening such an eventuality</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">rarely reaches that point as we've heard.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">If ICANN wants to honor the AoC with respect to WHOIS, it firmly believe it</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">needs to shift from the voluntary mechanisms that don't work to a simple</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">though comprehensive set of mandatory mechanisms that will work. These</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">mechanisms should exist outside of any "at law"remedies but should be in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">concert with them.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">I'll think about adding the VC to 4. My gut reaction is that it will still</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">allow too much legal room if/when the legal system is required.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Bill</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">On Dec 1, 2011, at 9:04 AM, "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Hi Bill, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> I agree with most of what is in your and Seth's recommendation but do not</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">understand how an SLA will work with non-contracted parties.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> What if we added the voluntary best practices to #4?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Susan </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> -----Original Message-----</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> From: Smith, Bill [<a href="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com">mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>]
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 7:44 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> To: James M. Bladel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> I have no problem with folks not being "on board". However, we did agree</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">to language in Dakar in essence saying that ICANN should avoid mentioning</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proxies in the RAA. I realize that some may not have been fully on board</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">with that, and there have been suggestion to change our position.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> From my perspective, the changes are from the Dakar position to the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Voluntary Code proposal.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> I've pointed out how the VC can and likely will be circumvented,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">especially by "bad actors". If someone can demonstrate a way that the VC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">deals with this issue and avoids a return to the current state, I'm all</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">ears.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> One way for the VC to work is to have a set of SLAs that mandate action in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">response to non-compliance to the SLAs. I don't see a mention of that in the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">VC and I'd want to understand exactly what we're talking about regarding</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">times for roundtrip reveal/relay and the consequences for failure to respond</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">in a timely fashion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> On Dec 1, 2011, at 7:23 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Agree with Susan. These are very significant changes coming very late in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">the game.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> J.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> -------- Original Message --------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] The New Proxy Language</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<<a href="mailto:susank@fb.com">mailto:susank@fb.com</a>>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Date: Thu, December 01, 2011 8:58 am</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org</a>>"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"><rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org</a>>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Hi Kathy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> I am not onboard with Bill and Seth's recommendation but I am willing to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">explore this direction.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Susan</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Sent from my iPhone</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> On Dec 1, 2011, at 6:18 AM, "Kathy Kleiman"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"><kathy@kathykleiman.com<<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> But what James and Susan did so brilliantly, and for the first time in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> history, was to begin to bring the proxy services into the ICANN tent</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> and into sight. The idea of disclosing relationships, sharing ownership</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> and contractual relationships, is an enormous step forward. I think we</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> are losing something now...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> Kathy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> My preference is to replace the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines. I</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">think there is useful information in that language to guide development of</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">SLAs regarding Registrant responsibilities and response times so would hate</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">to see that work "tossed".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> Seth's language is an attempt to "flesh out" the simple text we had in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Dakar, that said ICANN should remove reference to proxy services from the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">RAA. I think he's done a good job, albeit perhaps a first cut, at doing that</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">and getting a conversation going on the practical implications of, let's</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">call it the Dakar proxy compact.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> As I recall, one of the reasons we decided to recommend removing proxies</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">from the RAA is that no matter how hard we, or ICANN tries to control or</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">regulate the proxy business, anyone can operate such a service outside of</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">the control of ICANN or the community. They simply register names and act on</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">behalf of someone else.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> What we, asa community, can do is develop some policies that set out</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">what is expected of all parties, including Registrants and have</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">consequences, mandatory in some cases, for failure to comply with the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">policies. The consequence of last resort is revocation of the name.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> These policies wouldn't take the place of legal action, but they would</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">fill the void where Registrants, or their proxies, are non-responsive.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> The alternative is the voluntary code, but we know that can be avoided,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">and letting the courts handle the situation... but that's basically where we</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">are today so I don't see how a code, voluntary or not helps in the end.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Hi All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">very much!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">put a value judgement on that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">already hurts!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> I would like to know what James thinks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Kathy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> Data Access- Proxy Service</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> 1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">which</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">of the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">rights and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">domain</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">domain</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> name.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">RAA</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">has</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">liability</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">delete or</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">proxy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> services to escape liability.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">services</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">are</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">widespread.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">liabilities</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">will</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">its</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">misused</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> available.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> _______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Rt4-whois mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> Rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> _______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> Rt4-whois mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> Rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> --</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> _______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> Rt4-whois mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> Rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> _______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Rt4-whois mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> _______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Rt4-whois mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> Rt4-whois@icann.org<<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">_______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Rt4-whois mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas">Rt4-whois@icann.org</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Consolas"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>