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

Fri Nov 25 09:34:51 UTC 2011

Hi all

I've been reading the comments on this contentious issue with interest.

So, trying to piece together what's been happening, there has been a lot of
discussion on this issue and a draft put together with Susan, James and
Kathy's cooperation.

I had thought that we were edging close to consensus in that small group,
but I see that James' latest edits seem to throw open the issue again.

I also note that Peter has expressed reservations about introducing a
detailed set of provisions this late in play, and that his sense of the
discussions in Dakar was that we considered the current contractual
provisions (RAA) to be quite clear on the liability accepted by proxies.

Where to go from here?

When in doubt, let's think about our options:

1. drop it entirely, and revert to what we decided in Dakar. I sense that
Susan at least (and others in the group including me) would feel that we
have not quite succeeded in our mandate if we do this.
2. Have another attempt to reach agreed language between the small group (+
I would be grateful for your intervention too Peter)
3. Introduce text explaining why we have got to where we are on proxies, ie:

- the contractual provisions impose strong obligations on the parties
- we view our recommendations as a step along the road, but recommend that
this area is actively monitored. We expect to see voluntary good practices,
and better standards of reveal and relay, and to that end welcome the
studies/policy work/whatever, that's going on in this regard.
- if the next Review Team is given similar feedback on failure by proxies
to reveal/relay that we have had, the situation will have to change more
fundamentally.  The community will need to figure out a way of bringing in
currently non-contracted parties into a regime which demands minimum
standards of behaviour.  We would rather see the proxy industry voluntarily
adopt such measures.

Can I have your reactions to these three broad options, please.  I do
encourage you to keep working towards language that is acceptable to all.
If we can't get there yet, we should not view this as a failure, but a
symptom of a complex subject.  We can make progress by identifying this as
an area of unease where change needs to happen.  Our choice is whether we
step in and say what that change should be and seek to make it mandatory,
or we identify that if change doesn't happen in the right way, the next
Review Team will be back.

Kind regards

Emily

On 25 November 2011 05:56, Mikhail Yakushev <m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru> wrote:

>  Dear James,****
>
> I am sorry to confirm that neither previous versions nor this format are
> readable…****
>
> Rgds,****
>
> M.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2011 8:26 AM
> *To:* Nettlefold,Peter
> *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan
> draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]****
>
>  ** **
>
> Peter and Team:
>
> Here is a second attempt with the Proxy document converted to an older
> version of Word.  I am currently using Word 2011 for MacOS, so I'm not sure
> what the issue is.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Please let me know if this works.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks--****
>
> ** **
>
> J.****
>
> ** **
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan
> draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> From: "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>
> Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 9:28 pm
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "Emily Taylor"
> <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" <rt4-whois at icann.org>****
>
> Hi all,****
>
> I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I
> alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had
> the edits to the recommendations.****
>
> James, or Alice – is it possible to re/send those two documents in a
> different format?****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Peter****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* James M. Bladel [*mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com*<jbladel at godaddy.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM
> *To:* Emily Taylor
> *Cc:* *rt4-whois at icann.org* <rt4-whois at icann.org>; Nettlefold, Peter
> *Subject:* RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan
> draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]****
>
>  ****
>
> Team:
>
> While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the
> language, here are my comments on the other sections.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks--****
>
>  ****
>
> J.****
>
>  ****
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan
> draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> From: Emily Taylor <*emily at emilytaylor.eu* <emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
> Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am
> To: "Nettlefold, Peter" <*Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au*<http://Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>
> >
> Cc: "*rt4-whois at icann.org* <rt4-whois at icann.org>" <*rt4-whois at icann.org*<rt4-whois at icann.org>
> >
>
> 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* <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* <rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:
> *rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org* <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* <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* <http://www.axway.com>.
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> *Rt4-whois at icann.org* <Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois*<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>    [image: Image removed by sender.]****
>
> *
> *
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> *emily at emilytaylor.eu* <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.****
>
>  ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> *Rt4-whois at icann.org* <Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois*<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois>
> ****
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> 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* <http://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/20111125/8ca7b7a1/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/8ca7b7a1/attachment.jpe 