[Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Wed Nov 30 12:10:33 UTC 2011

Hi Peter

Thanks - hope I can catch you before you head to bed.

I've been working through all the versions of the recommendations
documents, and I'm going to produce a guide to help us all assess the
language on this.  In answer to your specific question about where the
wording limiting the privacy provisions to ICANN accredited registrars was
introduced by James (clearly labeled and credited) on 23 November.    I
recognise that this is a change in the scope of the recommendation, which
was contentious to agree in Dakar, so I'm going to take this out for now.

I will try to find the latest version on proxies, which I think was
circulated by Susan, agreeable to James - who are the major players
involved in trying to get agreed language here.  I've set out the text I'll
be working with below this mail.

I hear what you say about voluntary provisions re: proxies, Peter. The
trouble is, we won't reach consensus in this group for anything stronger at
this time - that's my estimation anyway.  James and Susan have worked very
effectively together (and represent fairly polarised views on this issue,
but a common interest in nudging the community towards doing better).  For
what it's worth, I think that what they have come up with is good, and gets
the issue of proxies in frame.  It throws the responsibility back on to the
industry to come up with standardised reveal and relay.  If done
voluntarily, that would be great.  By the time the ongoing reports come
out, and the next WHOIS Review Team kicks off (we will be on a beach by
then, sipping pina coladas), it will be apparent whether or not those
voluntary measures have had the required effect - if they have not, more
will be needed.  However, the benefits of this approach are (1) it
highlights a specific problem and throws the responsibility on to the
industry to resolve it (2) it sets up expectations that more will be done
if it is not resolved in a satisfactory way.

Kind regards

Emily

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

All of this would be voluntary on the part of the proxy service provider.

Definitions
A proxy service - we should use the agreed upon definition once we have it.

>From 2009 RAA 1.20 "Affiliated Registrar" is another ICANN accredited
registrar that operates under a common controlling interest.
Affiliate retail proxy service provider is an entity that operates under a
common controlling interest of a registrar. "
Retail proxy service provider - provides a proxy service with little or no
knowledge of the entity or individual  requesting the service  beyond their
ability to pay and their agreement to the  general terms and conditions.

Limited proxy service provider - provides a proxy service for an entity or
individual in which there is an ongoing business relationship bound by a
contract that is specific to the relationship.

1)      a registrar is  required to disclose their relationship with a
Retail proxy service provider to ICANN.

2)      A retail proxy service provider should follow best practice
guidelines developed by the community.  These may include the following:

a.      standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes;

establish a standardized process for requesting contact information for a
proxy registration

b.      guidance on the appropriate level of publicly available information
on the registrant;
c.      maintenance of a dedicated and available  abuse point of contact;
d.      public disclosure of contact details and the physical address of
the retail proxy service provider; and
e.      validate registrant contact information.
3.      The best practice guidelines should be developed in close
consultation with the GAC, privacy advocates, law enforcement, and other
interested stakeholders.
4.      ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with
the retail service providers that adopt the best practices.

On 30 November 2011 10:19, Nettlefold, Peter
<Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>wrote:

> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> Hi Emily and all,
>
> Thanks again to everyone for all the hard work on this.
>
> I'm heading to sleep soon, so may miss the sign off if it goes ahead.
>
> To hopefully help the proxy discussion along, I am comfortable with the
> principles/ideas in Seth's last email, so if there is a way to draft
> recommendations for ICANN to stop endorsing proxies and proactively clarify
> that anyone who engages in this practice should assume all liability, in a
> way that also addresses Susan's concerns, I would support those.
>
> I do not support limited or voluntary measures to address the current
> problems with privacy or proxy services. These services have a profound
> impact on the effectiveness of WHOIS, and are the primary mechanism used by
> registrants to address privacy concerns, and ICANN needs to address them in
> a clear and comprehensive way. My concern is that limited or voluntary
> solutions will encourage gaming and provide safe harbours for bad actors. I
> think we can do better than that, and can come up with recommendations that
> address the current problems without encouraging new ones.
>
> My other concerns are on record, so I'll pass the baton to whoever is
> awake, and wish you happy editing.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>  *From*: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu]
> *Sent*: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 08:41 PM
> *To*: rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> *Subject*: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update
>
> Hi all
>
> Thanks for your work overnight (or at least, my night).
>
> I'm trying to pull together the threads of the many e-mail messages that
> have passed in the last 12 hours or so.
>
>
> 1. Version control - this is proving a nightmare for everyone.  I am sorry
> that so many of you have been struggling with this.  I can see that we have
> had comments on the whole or part of the report from Bill, Susan, Peter,
> Lynn.  I understand that Kathy was unable to see Bill's edits, so rolled
> back to an earlier version.  There is also an incredibly annoying,
> persistent "comment" that is repeated about 100 times randomly throughout
> the document, and needs to be eliminated as it's confusing.
>
> *Action:  Alice, please would you circulate the latest copy of the Report
> to the list as soon as possible, getting rid of highlighting except where
> it indicates a major disagreement, and leaving in all the comments from
> Bill, Susan, Peter and Lynn, but removing that buggy one.
>
> *2. Recommendations - Peter noticed that the ambit of the privacy
> recommendations seems to have changed since Dakar, without an explanation
> of how or why that change was made.  Clearly, this will tend to reduce
> confidence, so my focus this morning will be to review and circulate a copy
> of the recommendations.  I'm assisted in this by Kathy's work yesterday.
> She and I have been puzzling over how to clean up/wordsmith/ etc the
> recommendations, while respecting the negotiated text.  This is a very
> difficult task.  There are also new recommendations on proxies, the one
> from Lutz on common interface, and one which I put in about the Whois Data
> Reminder Policy (from the compliance letter).
>
> *Action: I will review the latest draft recommendations, and compare with
> the Dakar text.  I will circulate a clean and marked up copy, with the
> latest versions of the recommendations, and an explanation for what has
> changed and why.
>
> *3. Deadline.  I'm not prepared to give up yet!  This is our draft
> report.  It is not our final version.  I will call it at 5pm UTC today.  I
> want us to make every effort to get this out when we said we would. I
> really believe we can do this.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 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.
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> 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.
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
>

-- 

*
*

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/20111130/a76abc96/attachment.html 