[Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Mikhail Yakushev]

Dear Peter, colleagues,
I have carefully reviewed Peter's draft and mostly agree with the provided analysis.  I also would mostly agree with the suggested recommendations - but I think we need to discuss each of them separately to achieve the highest possible level of consensus within our team.
Kind regards,
Michael

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:48 AM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hello all,

Attached is the first section of the draft 'gaps' chapter, for review and comment.

As you'll see, this section covers accessibility and privacy issues, and it still has some gaps.

I've also drafted and included some recommendations on this issue, building on the public and law enforcement input and our own discussions. I hope these are helpful.

As you'll see, I've drawn a distinction between proxy and privacy services in the draft chapter, and this will need some further work (but I didn't want to delay getting this out to you any further while I worked on this). I've tried to unpack this distinction in the draft chapter, but also wanted to also explain my thinking to you.

The main challenge identified by responses to our consultation processes, and in our own discussions, is to find a way to balance any legitimate privacy concerns with the interests of other stakeholders. The position I've put forward in the draft chapter is that this can be achieved through the regulated use of privacy services (i.e. services that make the identity of the registrant known, but limit availability to other personal data - at least in the first instance). Proxy services, which replace the name of the registrant with that of another entity, are quite different in nature, and I think that these services raise serious questions about ICANN's ability to enforce its AoC obligations.

I have drafted the chapter with this distinction in mind, although some parts of the argument need a bit more work.

I'm aiming to circulate the next section of the draft chapter - on accuracy - in a day or two, and the section on compliance shortly after that.

Unfortunately the next call is now scheduled for 1am my time, so I won't be attending.

I look forward to discussing this further as we work towards our Marina del Ray meeting.

Cheers,

Peter



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.


If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.


Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110817/e3ebc1cc/attachment.html