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

Fri Nov 25 16:04:28 UTC 2011

Peter,
You email below is eloquent, and I urge everyone to read it. We really 
have to wrestle with these issues, and quickly. I truly wish we had more 
information, and note there are two very complex studies now taking 
place in the GNSO right now because the community, as a whole, felt it 
needed much more information in this area. It is a confusing one!

I share the concerns that Peter is raising, but from a somewhat 
different perspective. If we are "blessing" the existence of proxy and 
privacy services, then I think we need to make it very clear *to 
registrants* what is happening. E.g., From a registrant perspective:
     -    when is their name going to be disclosed (privacy service),
     -    when do they have legal liability (privacy service),
     -    when is someone else the "owner" of their domain name (proxy 
service).
I submitted some changes consistent with this goal of the most basic 
education and information.

I think we have to be very, very clear because, from the perspective of 
.ORG political groups, for example, people's lives may be on the line.

Best,
Kathy
:
>
> Thanks Emily, that's very useful, and I think I understand where its 
> coming from.
>
> I have a few follow on questions, as I'm trying to understand the big 
> picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as 
> this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I'm a bit nervous 
> about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only 
> limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That 
> said, I'm not opposed, just cautious.
>
> In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our 'privacy' 
> recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three 
> different arrangements: i.e. privacy, 'known' proxies, and 'unknown' 
> proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment 
> of parallel 'known proxy' and 'privacy' regimes, we would need to 
> clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note 
> that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have 
> been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a 
> key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different 
> types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy 
> services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address 
> some of my concerns.
>
> Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider 
> the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed 
> at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively 
> endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a 
> registrant's identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why 
> we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead 
> that we would argue that:
>
> ·the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue 
> to the registered name holder; and
>
> ·ICANN should endorse and regulate 'privacy' services which could 
> limit the availability of _sensitive_ personal data, without 
> completely obfuscating the registrant's identity.
>
> This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a 
> range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the 
> chain of contractual rights and responsibilities.
>
> Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter 
> regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the 
> endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would 
> be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the 
> replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. 
> the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to 
> have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse 
> etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by 
> introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, 
> anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in 
> effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have 
> tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I 
> think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this 
> approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we 
> can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler 
> alternative?
>
> I hope I'm not making this unnecessarily complicated -- I just want to 
> make sure that we don't make a rushed change that has not been fully 
> discussed.
>
> I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> *From:*Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM
> *To:* Nettlefold, Peter
> *Cc:* Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan 
> draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> 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 <mailto: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> 
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> 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 <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>*
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England 
> and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
>
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 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

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/cf621e49/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/cf621e49/attachment.jpe 