[Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Emily Taylor]

Hi Peter

As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a
couple of days.

My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine
these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar.  In other words,
instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this.  Susan
explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a
proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy.
There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship
(eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding
is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these.  They are not
viewed as problematic.

What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are
the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really
a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this
is a low cost add on at the point of registration.  The two parties don't
really know each other that well.  These are the ones we're hoping to
describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these
recommendations.

I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to
Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up.

Thanks

Emily

On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter
<Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>wrote:

> Hi Susan and all,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> I’m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see
> if I understand this proposal correctly.****
>
> ** **
>
> In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e.
> will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all
> rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special
> subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ‘proxy’ is
> being used) then some special rules apply? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be
> special new rules for ‘known’ proxies (however defined), and in all other
> cases we do not acknowledge proxies?****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I’m just trying to
> understand the position.****
>
> ** **
>
> As there isn’t a recording up yet that I’ve seen, any advice on whether
> other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi
> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM
> *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan
> draft(2).doc****
>
> ** **
>
> Hello All, ****
>
> ** **
>
> I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough
> draft.  The attached document contains Kathy’s revisions and comments to my
> original proposed recommendation.   I have added proposed definitions for
> the terms we are struggling with.  These came out of discussions between
> James and I.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but
> I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy.  I am hoping we
> will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for
> the team.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Susan ****
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s)
> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> all
> copies of the original message.
>
> This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
> MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam,
> undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway
> products please visit www.axway.com.
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>


-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/116ebd29/attachment.html